Skip to main content

Full text of "Minutes of the San Francisco City Planning Commission regular meeting"

See other formats


f/s 




San Francisco Public Library 

Governmsnt Information 
San Francisco Public Lit 
100 Larkin Street, 5th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

California State Library Califa/LSTA Grant 



http://archive.org/details/37minutesofsanfran1978san 



LtJL 



. ' 3 

E 

PUELIC LIBRARY 



-"SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
SUMMARY AND MINUTES 
OF THE 
SPECIAL MEETING 
WEDNESDAY 
JUNE 7, 1978 
MISSION HICH SCHOOL 
3750 - 18TH STREET AT DOLORES STREET 
7:30 P.M. 

The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Wednesday, 
June 7, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. at Mission High School, 3750 - 18th Street 
at Dolores Street. 

PRESENT: Toby Rosenblatt, President; Ina F. Dearman, Vice- 
President; Susan J. Bierman, Dr. Yoshio Nakashima, 
Charles Starbuck, and John Wentz, members of the 
City Planning Commission. 

ABSENT: Thomas Miller, member of the City Planning Commission. 

The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by 
R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implementation (Zoning Admin- 
istrator); Robert W. Passmore, Planner V (Zoning); Mark Winogrond, 
Planner III; Gary Craft, Planner II; Carol Sugarman, Planner II; 
Robert H. Feldman, Planner II; and Lee Woods, Secretary. 

Gerald Adams represented the San Francisco Examiner, and Dan 
Borsuk represented the San Francisco Progress. 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT 
OF THE CITY PLANNING CODE AND PROPOSED CITY-WIDE REVISIONS TO 
THE ZONING MAP. 

Mr. Mark Winogrond, Planner III and Director of the Residential 
Zoning Study, in his opening presentation said: 

"Tonight's hearing begins the last series of hearings 
before the Commission regarding proposed comprehensive 
changes to the Text of the City Planning Code and to the 
Zoning Map relating to residential district and development. 

"On May 18, 1978, after nearly five months of public 
hearings and careful testing, refinement and redrafting of 
provisions first presented to the Commission on November 
29, 1977, the Planning Department presented recommended changes 
to'both the Proposed Text and Maps. Those recommendations 
are the subject of tonight's hearing. Before the Commission 
hears from the public, I would like to briefly summarize the 



3 1223 05864 0740 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING -2- JUNE 7, 1978 

testimony to date and the proposed Text changes, then ask 
Robert Feldman to summarize the map changes, and have Gary 
Craft give a very brief status report on the EIR. 

" General Nature of the Comments 

"The January, February and March meetings were charact- 
ized by intense and sometimes spirited testimony. There 
was much disagreement with the proposals before the Commission, 
and although most frequently the disagreement was as to degree 
of control rather than the objectives, the objectives were 
also challenged. Some speakers questioned the wisdom of preser- 
ving older dwellings in view of the strong demand for new 
housing, often consisting of smaller dwelling units, while 
others questioned the need for new housing given declining 
population figures and the relative soundness of existent 
residential units and neighborhoods. Many statements supported 
the controls for some areas of the City, while requesting less 
restrictive controls for other areas. The points of disagree- 
ment tended to be emphasized by speakers rather than those 
of agreement. Whereas, earlier meetings had generally been 
dominated by proponents of the proposals, these meetings 
appeared to have an approximately even nix of proponents and 
opponents . 

"Most speakers recognized the undesirable consequences 
of the higher density apartment buildings that had encroached 
upon smaller dwellings under the existing zoning ordinance, 
and had caused the wave of zoning reclassification requests 
from neighborhood associations for 'downzoning' and eventually 
this comprehensive zoning study of all residential areas of 
the City. Still, many speakers wanted to achieve higher den- 
sities, or higher and longer buildings, on their individual 
properties. In requests for such changes, the need for add- 
itional housing units, rising rents and costs of new houses, 
and rising taxes were recurring themes. Providing a variety 
of housing types in all neighborhoods was often mentioned. 
Those who wished to develop properties stated that new dwelling 
units should be added in existing residential neighborhoods; 
those who wished to preserve the status quo for their existing 
neighborhoods said additional dwelling units could be provided 
on underutilized commercial and industrial land, particularly 
in the eastern and South of Market street areas of the city. 
Of course, the proposed Residential Zoning Standards will per- 
mit the development of new housing theoretically enough for 
20 years according to the Standards. The challenge to the 
Department then is to develop practical programs that will 
help create appropriate housing opportunities, and that will 
promote the use of such opportunities when they do occur. 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING -3- JUNE 7, 1978 

"A major topic of concern mentioned by many speakers, 
the procedural requirements of the City Planning Code or 
practices of the staff, was not actually a subject of the 
residential zoning proposals. Both residents and builders 
expressed concern about delays in enforcement of the stand- 
ards of the City Planning Code. Residential groups felt 
enforcement against z ning violations was haphazard and too 
far too long. Builders stressed costly delays resulting 
from 3low processing of applications for building permits, 
variances, conditional uses and zoning changes. Unfair 
treatment of developers in contrast to neighborhood assoc- 
iations was stressed by builders, while residents complained 
that they were not always given a chance to be heard. These 
concerns are already under study by the Department, and 
proposed changes to the Code, and to operating procedures 
of the Department staff and City Planning Commission, will 
be presented to the Commission later this year. 

"Testimony was also received concerning various problems 
related to trends occurring in local shopping districts, zoned 
both C-l and C-2. Changes in the zoning standards and in the 
specific districts shown on the Zoning Map were suggested. 
Because policies for commercial and industrial districts have 
not yet been established firmly in the Master Plan, and 
studies for implementing such policies still must be made, 
thorough responses to most of these suggestions can not occur 
within the time schedule set for the Residential Zoning Changes. 

"Most of the concern over permitted uses dealt with the 
need to provide incentives for development of low- and moderate- 
income housing, but these concerns do not appear to be solvable 
through zoning techniques. 

"The substantive changes recommended for Article 2 includes 

"- Allowing an additional dwelling unit whenever a 
fraction of 3/4 or more of the required lot area 
is present. 

"- Allowing the double density provision to apply to 
handicapped persons as well as the elderly. 

"- Allowing the double density provison for elderly 

and handicapped to apply to single-family districts 
as well as higher density districts. 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING -4- JUNE 7, 1978 

"- Increasing the size of Child Care Facilities not 
requiring special review from 10 kids to 12 kids. 
This will then conform to State Law. 

"Four Amendments to Article 2 have been presented at 
the Commission's requests, but without a staff recommendation. 
They are 

"- Making more restrictive the density provisions on 
large sites in RH Districts. 

"- Including certain institutional uses as Conditional 
Uses in RH-1, RH-l(S) and RH-l(D) as well as other 
Residential Districts. 

"- Allowing Philanthropic facilities in RH and RM Districts 
by Conditional Use; and 

"- Allowing C-l and C-2 uses by Conditional Use in 
Designated Landmarks. 

"Most comments concerning the substance of the Residential 
Zoning Text dealt with the contents of Article 1.2 controlling 
dimensions, areas and other aspects of buildings and lots. 

"Both more restrictive and less restrictive controls 
were suggested, while clarification of a number of pro- 
visions was also requested. In general, the staff response 
has been to liberalize aspects of the controls so that 
greater design flexibility and increased opportunity for 
a variety of dwelling unit type is provided. 

"Specifically, the substantive changes are: 

"- Two Amendments to the front setback rule to give 

greater flexibility on corner lots and on basically 
undevelopec blocks. 

"- Instituting a simple 25% rear yard requirement in 
single-family districts. 

"- Removal of the private usable open space require- 
ment, in all districts while retaining the open 
space requirement itself. 

"Increasing flexibility in the bay window provision; and 

"- Modification of the curb cut limitation to reduce its 
impact on buildings only one lot wide. 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING -5- JUNE 7, 19 78 

"Five minor changes are proposed to the parking and 
loading requirements. Each adds consistency or clarification. 

"One important addition is proposed for Article 1.7. This 
change would allow the reconstruction on earthquake-hazardous 
unreinforced masonry buildings to their existing size regard- 
less of present zoning restrictions. This is an implementation 
of the policies of the city's comprehensive plan. In all, 35 
text changes are recommended to the Commission." 

Robert Feldman, Planner II, corcraenting on the requests for map- 
ping changes, said that the staff received more than 400 requests 
from property owners and neighborhood groups to change the proposed 
zoning maps which had been developed by the Residential Zoning Study 
staff. Most of these requests, he said, were received by the Depart- 
ment after the initiation of the revised residential zoning proposals 
on December 8, 1977. The last hearing on this matter, he said, was 
held on March 7 and the deadline for submittal of these requests for 
zoning changes was March 10. 

He informed the audience that the new yellow request forms for 
additional requests were available in the lobby and at the Depart- 
ment's office and that these were co be submitted within the next 
three weeks . 

Mr. Feldman said that the staff mapped all of the requests on 
working maps, including several overlays for those areas which were the 
subject of group requests as well as from individuals. He stated that 
during the month of April, the staff made anumber of field trips to 
all the streets involved city-wide, and reevaluated the proposed map- 
ping in light of the comments and proposals of the public. He said 
that the same criteria that had been used for the original mapping 
in 1976, were used in the reevaluation of the proposed zones. The 
purpose, he explained, remained the same: to map new residential 
zoning districts in a manner that would preserve the unique residen- 
tial neighborhoods of the city, while at the same time allowing 
reasonable and harmonious new construction, and renovation, to meet 
the housing needs of the city. The ten criteria used for reevaluation, 
he said, were a modification of the criteria listed in the Report 
for Residential Zoning, the sixteen-page tabloid distributed to all 
property owners in December of last year. 

Mr. Feldman further said that the Residential Zoning Study staff 
had then prepared a set of maps with their recommendations for zoning 
changes based on their field analysis. These zoning maps were thor- 
oughly discussed at special departmental meetings in which the senior 
zoning staff and the neighborhood liaison staff fully participated. 
These sessions, he said, were usually scheduled for whole afternoons 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING -6- JUNE 7, 19 78 

during late April and were often heated professional debates at which 
many points of view were aired. The results of these meetings were 
a set of revisions which were then reviewed and approved by the 
Director and prepared by the Granphics staff. 

The basic criterion at all times was, Mr. Feldman continued, 
whether the proposed zoning would reflect the existing character of 
each neighborhood as to building-type and density, that is, the num- 
ber of units per lot. Most of the requests for change in the proposed 
zoning were not acted upon by the staff because they would, in the 
opinion of the staff, result in zoning out of character with the 
neighborhood. The staff, he said, took a fresh look at each zoning 
situation and in many cases came up with a new solution that was in- 
tended to meet the needs of the property owners, the residents of 
the neighborhood and the other concerned parties. 

Referring to the proposed zoning maps displayed there, Mr. Feld- 
man pointed out that the staff recommendations for changes were in- 
dicated by color: the green areas indicated that the recommended 
new zoning district was one allowing less density than the zoning 
shown on the maps initiated on December 8, 1977, which are presently 
in effect. The yellow areas, he said, were recommended districts 
which permitted more density per lot, and the grey areas were recom- 
mended changes to districts with different use standards, but the 
same density standards. 

Many of the grey areas, he said, were recommendations to delete 
the RC Residential/Commercial combing districts which were previously 
mapped and were now recommended for change, in most cases, to the 
same district as the adjacent property. 

Mr. Feldman referred to the request received from the Residential 
Builders Association to change the zoning on most of the sheets of 
the zoning map. Their proposal, he said, was basically for medium 
density multiple residential zoning, RM-1 and RM-2, for all the 
residential thoroughfares in the city. The ctaff recommendations 
incorporated that request in only a few places on the zoning map. 

He also referred to the requests made by the Chamber of Commerce 
and the Board of Education, for changes involving P (Public Use) 
Districts. The Chamber asked that the site of the Rincon Annex Post 
Office be zoned C-3-0 and C-3-S , to allow new office building develop- 
ment, and not P as on the proposed map. The staff, he said, reviewed 
that request and recommended that the zoning remain P until the Fed- 
eral Government sells the properties to private interests, or a 
specific proposal for non-governmental use is made. The Unified 
School District requested that its elementary and other small school 
sites be zoned as on the existing maps, the same as the surrounding 
residential or commercial property. He said that the staff reviewed 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING -7- JUNE 7, 1978 

this idea and recommended that all government property including small 
school sites be zoned P (Public), until the time as the property is 
sold to the private sector or a specific non-public use is proposed. 
With a specific proposal before it and the Community, the Commission, 
he said, could consider appropriate zoning and the Community would 
have a chance to be heard on the subject. 

Concluding his presentation, Mr. Feldman said that the staff 
was recommending that the proposed zoning be changed for 3500 proper- 
ties citywide, with a net increase in potential dwelling units of 
5766 units. 

Gary Craft, Planner II, reported that the public was duly noti- 
fied by means of two advertisements released in the San Francisco 
Examiner. He further said that the copies of the Environmental Im- 
pact Report were sent to everyone on the distribution list and to 
all branch libraries. Additional copies, he said, were available 
from the Department of City Planning at 100 Larkin Street. 

Mr. Craft also informed the audience about the Public Hearing on 
the Revised Environmental Impact Report, to be held on June 22, 1978, 
at 2:00 p.m., at Room 282, City Hall. He said that the Environmental 
Impact Report could be ready for certification on June 29, 1978, pro- 
vided there were no extensive comments or revisions. 

Mr. Jude Laspa of the Eureka Valley Promotion Association, asked 
the Commission about responses to questions and requests for zoning 
changes . 

President Rosenblatt said that the staff's response to requests 
for Map and Text changes had been presented to the Commission in a 

memorandum dated May 18, 1978. The Commission is reviewing that 

document. The objective is to have the staff's responses to questions 

and requests generated by this set of hearings, to the Commission by 

June 27, 1978, he said. Final recommendations would come to the 
Commission by June 29th. 

Mr. Laspa asked if items in the final recommendations would be 
taken on an individual basis, or if the recommendation would be con- 
sidered as a whole with each Commissioner free to comment at will. 

President Rosenblatt said that the latter x^ould be the proced- 
ure . 

Mr. Gary F Q ldesy represented the Twin Peaks Improvement Associa- 
tion. He described an area generally bounded by Greystone Terrace, 
Burnett Avenue, Corbett and Clayton Streets. This area, he said, is 
massively and dangerously overdeveloped. This is especially true of 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING -8- JUNE 7, 19 78 

the area bounded by Greystone, Burnett, Iron and Copper Alleys, he 
said . 

Mr. Faldesy, using a map which he had prepared, described each 
of three areas and said that his Association had concern about the 
the proposed zoning. 

The first area included nine (9) lots. Presently there exists 
five (5) single family dwellings, two (2) duplexes and two (2) 
multiple unit buildings. We could understand zoning the area RH-2, 
but we can't understand the RM- 1 which has been proposed, he said. 

The second area, he said, contains massive multiple units. It 
is excessively developed, and it should be downzcried. Under the 
proposed RM- 1 , there is an incentive to combine lots and this results 
in greater density and more massive structures. Responding to 
Commissioner Wentz, Mr. Faldesy said that it was the consolidation 
of lots which his association feared. 

At the suggestion of President Rosenblatt, Mr. Winogrond agreed 
that the staff would take another look at these areas. 

The third area described by Mr. Faldesy was proposed for RM- 1 . 
Mr. Faldesy said that it includes three (3) multiple unit buildings, 
three (3) single family dwellings and three (3) duplexes. 

In all fairness, this area should be zoned RH-2, Mr. Faldesy 
said. The single family owners should be allowed to convert for one 
additional unit. 

Mr. Winogrond asked Mr. Faldesy if his concern was development 
of massive buildings or in terms of density. It is both, he said. 

President Rosenblatt said that, based on Mr. Faldesy's presen- 
tation, it was the concensus that the staff should reconsider its 
recommendations . 

Ms. Anita Banash-Arlen made the following statement: 

"Friends of Noe Valley is very pleased that the 
Planning Department has recommended the RC-1 zoning 
for 24th Street between Church and Diamond Streets 
and hope that this zoning is approved by the Planning 
Commission in its recommendation to the Board of Super- 
visors for ratification of the proposed rezoning plan 
for San Francisco. We have stated many times the 
reasons why this zoning is proper for 24th Street, 
however, obtaining the RC-1 zoning is not the conclusion 
of the issue if proper enforcement of the zoning does 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING -9- JUNE 7, 1978 

not exist. There have been for some time businesses and 
organizations opened after R-3-C went into effect in Jan- 
uary 1977 operating in above ground floor units. These 
violations have been reported orally to the Planning 
Staff and letters regarding these violations are being 
prepared. To date, however, no action has been taken 
by the enforcement arm of the Planning Department to 
cease operations in these locations. Without strict 
enforcement, a zoning, no matter how restrictive, will 
not serve its purpose. Even if a unit is illegally 
converted, that business should be forced to relocate 
and a residence reclaimed. If this kind of enforcement 
does not exist, there will be no deterrent to a business 
illegally converting residential space into commercial. 
I am sure that neighborhood organizations would be more 
than willing to work with enforcement at the Planning 
Department to prevent and rectify any violations, and a 
committee comprised of Planning Department staff and the 
neighborhood organization members whould be created for 
this purpose . 

"Finally, Friends of Noe Valley submitted a set of 
proposed strict conditional use guidelines to be in effect 
under the RC-1 zoning. The Planning Commission's response 
was to thank us for the letter. We, of course, appreciate 
that response, but we would like more specific feedback on 
how feasible the Commission feels these guidelines are, 
and how these guidelines can be implemented and enforced. 
Again, Friends of Noe Valley would welcome the Planning 
Department's invitation to specifically work on estab- 
lishing and/or standardizing these guidelines for partic- 
ularly the RC-1 zoning or for any other proposed zoning 
where these guidelines would be desirable. 

"Thank you very much for your considerations." 

Ms. M.J. Vermigilio and Mr. Guthrie Evans, of the Potrero Hill 
League of Active Neighbors, summarized the following statement: 

"As per our letter and presentation at the February 
public hearing POTRERO HILL LEAGUE OF ACTIVE NEIGHBORS is 
very pleased with the Planning Department's recommendation 
to zone the major portion of Potrero Hill RH-2 in keeping 
with the existing character and use. (Through a low-key 
effort, we had obtained over 200 signatures on a petition 
supporting the RH-2 interim control zoning - indicating a 
great deal of support for RH-2 zoning classification for 
the Potrero Hill community.) 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING -10- JUNE 7, 1978 

"However, we are requesting downzoning to RH-2 for 
one RM-1 and three RH-3 proposed districts which we 
believe to be overzoned and not in character with the 
predominant one and two unit dwelling: 

"- 20th Street between Vermont and Carolina Streets - 
RM-1 Assessor's Blocks: 4071, 4072, 4073 and 4074 - 
southern portions; 4093, 4094, 4095 and 4096 - 
northern portions; (4070 - PUD). 

"- Rhode Island between 20th and 22nd Streets and 22nd 
Street between Vermont and Carolina Streets - RH-3 
Assessor's Blocks: 4094 - east; 4095 - west; 4093 
and 4096 - southern portions; 4158, 4159 and 4160 - 
northern portions. 

"- DeHaro Street between 24th and 25th Streets - RH-3 
Assessor's Blocks: 4259 - east; 4218 - west. 

"- Texas Street between 24th and 25th Streets - RH-3 
Assessor's Blocks: 4244 - southwest (northern and 
eastern portions - industrial M-l zone). 

We found these districts to be overwhelmingly one and two 
unit family dwellings. (Please refer to our letter and 
attachments relating to 1977 door-to-door walking density 
survey - dated 2/21/78.) 

"Our survey notes of the 20th and Rhode Island Street 
areas indicate that only a small number of buildings contain 
three or more units and such buildings do not warrant up- 
zoning of the entire adjacent areas or the creation of 
separate RM-1 and RH-3 districts. 

"The DeHaro and Texas Street areas are composed en- 
tirely of one and two unit dwellings (with many vacant 
lots). The total density of these areas is RH-1 (average). 
RH-3 classification would literally triple the number of 
units on these blocks. Development to RH-3 density would 
require extensive investment in street, sewer and other 
public work improvements. Residents of these areas must 
not be made to incur the cost of such improvements. 

"PLAN believes that the preservation of the quality 
of life in our community depends on maintaining RH-2 density, 
The RH-2 classification is most conducive to owner occupied 
dwellings with provision for one additional unit. Owner 
occupancy implies assurance of maintenance of neighborhood 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING -11- JUNE 7, 1978 

stability and discourages absentee landlordism and 
speculative investment. RH-2 also helps to alleviate 
development pressure on the existing housing stock, par- 
ticularly demolition-redevelopment of single family houses. 

"RH-2 zoning will also protect the neighborhood from 
the usual problems associated with increased density: 
increased traffic and parking congestion, noise and pollu- 
tion. PLAN is supportive of community development, pro- 
vided all new development is in keeping with the existing 
neighborhood character. The Potrero Hill district is not 
developed to the maximum density allowed under the RH-2 
zoning. RH-2 classification allows for development on all 
vacant lots (approximately 60) as well as added units to 
the many existing single unit structures (approximately 
1,290) . 

"PLAN encourages the Planning Commission, Mayor's 
Office and other appropriate city agencies to look at the 
underutilized industrial and commercial land in the eastern 
and southern portions of our city for development of new 
moderate income housing. This land area has the most poten- 
tial for meeting the moderate income housing needs of our 
city. PLAN proposes that the industrial areas which border 
and overlap Potrero Hill be zoned to allow for mixed indus- 
trial-residential uses with provision for protective per- 
formance criteria standards for all industries located with- 
in these zones in order to insure compatible mixed uses and 
environmental quality. We wish to encourage the presence of 
industry within our city for the economic and employment 
benefits; however, we must also protect the quality of our 
living environment by legislating that industries located 
within these border zones comply with strict environmental 
and performance standards. 

"POTRERO HILL LEAGUE OF ACTIVE NEIGHBORS urges you to 
consider our request for reclassification to RH-2 of the 
above specified districts in order to maintain and preserve 
the character of our community for planned development. We 
again urge you to consider our proposal for new moderate 
income residential development in the city's underutilized 
industrial zones. We trust you will consider our recommen- 
dations. Please feel free to contact us if further infor- 
mation is needed. Thank you." 

Mr. Bill Wilson represented the Council of District Merchants 
Association. Mr. Wilson referred to "criterion J" of the May 18th 
report. He said that the criterion was a lengthy paragraph which 
could be rewritten, and he asked the staff to do this. 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING -12- JUNE 7, 1978 

Mr. Wilson asked that Proposition 13 not be allowed to interfere 
with work on the Commerce and Industry Element. He said that the 
Council approves of the staff recommendation for retention of C-2 
districts until commerce and industry studies are completed. We will 
be working on controls for certain uses in C-l and C-2 districts, 
he said. 

Mr. Wilson asked if additional meetings were being planned to 
consider various issues related to C-l and C-2 districts. 

President Rosenblatt said that the senior staff, over the next 
twenty (20) days to a month, would probably be consumed by work-pro- 
gram and staff issues as a result of Jarvis-Gann and that it would 
be difficult to project specific meeting dates at this time. 

With respect to Page 50, the Pacific Heights section of the May 
18th report, Mr. Wilson said that the Council supports the Residential 
Zoning Study only to the extent that a residential neighborhood is 
improved but not where the Study infringes upon or involves commer- 
cial zoning . 

Mr. Wilson commended the staff for its recognition of the fact 
that RC districts can create problems and for its recommendations 
that certain RC districts be reclassified to C-l or C-2. 

In the context of Commercial Districts, Mr. Passmore said that 
there had been a number of disappointing meetings with merchants, 
without much participation, in response to the Board of Supervisors 
request for Conditional Uses in C-l and C-2 districts. 

Mr. Don McCaw, speaking on behalf of the Thompson Family, said 
that lot 1 in Assessor's Block No. 3535 should be rezoned to C-2. 
We agree with the staff recommendation, he said. 

Mr. Jude Laspa represented the Eureka Valley Promotion Associa- 
tion. Mr. Laspa wished to apply three criteria (including 1. Zoning 
to prevailing use; 2. similar zoning for both sides of the street; 
and 3. underutilized or vacant land) for analysis of changes in 
proposed zoning to specific proposed map provisions. In addition 
to these three (3) criteria contained in the May 18th report, Mr. 
Laspa proposed a fourth criterion of the impacted area of the neigh- 
borhood . 

On the basis of these criteria, Mr. Laspa suggested that the 
staff r°consider its proposed mapping for four (A) areas. 1. Grand- 
view Avenue near Market Street, 2. Corwin Street, 3. 17th Street 
between Castro and Diamond Streets, and 4. Yukon Street and Kite Hill. 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING -13- JUNE 7, 1978 

Dr. Antonio Ragadio testified in opposition to the proposed RC 
zoning for the middle one-third (1/3) of Geneva Avenue. Dr. Ragadio 
favored a commercial designation for all of Geneva Avenue. 

Mr. Norman Miller, representing the Union Oil Company, requested 

a meeting with Department staff to discuss mapping of non-conforming 

use service station- 
Ms. Eleanor Edwards, representing property owners in the area 

of 2nd Avenue and Clement Street, endorsed the proposed RH-2 for 

the area. 

In his testimony, Mr. Victor Gilbert expressed the belief that 
the area, on Potrero Hill, near 20th Street and Rhode Island should 
be mapped RM-1. He opposed the proposed RH-2. 

Mr. Eugene Dymick, a Potrero Hill property owner, requested that 
his property's RH-3 zoning be retained, and that property bounded by 
Wisconsin, Carolina, 24th and 25th be zoned RH-3 instead of RH-2. 

Mr. Robert Presser, owner of property at Sutter and Gough Streets 
requested C-2 zoning. Staff believed that this property was in a 
Redevelopment area, and that the Department might not have jurisdic- 
tion. The staff agreed to look into the matter. 

It was moved by Commissioner Bierman, seconded by Commissioner 
Wentz and unanimously carried that the meeting be continued to 
June 13, 1978. 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lee Woods 
Secretary 



puclec 

san francisco 

city planning commission 

summary and minutes 

OF THE 
SPECIAL MEETING 
TUESDAY 
JUNE 13, 1978 
GALILEO HIGH SCHOOL 
1055 BAY STREET AT VAN NESS AVENUE 
7:30 P.M. 

The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Tuesday, June 13, 1978, 
at 7:30 p.m. at Galileo High School, 1055 Bay Street at Van Ness Avenue. 

PRESENT: Toby Rosenblatt, President; Susan J. Bierman, Dr. Yoshio Nakashima, 
and Charles Starbuck, members of the City Planning Commission. 

ABSENT: Ina F. Dearman, Vice-President- Thomas Matoff, and Thomas Miller, 
members of the City Planning Commission. 

The staff of the Department c f City Planning was represented by Rai Y. Okamoto, 
Director of Planning- R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implementation (Zoning 
Administrator); Robert W. Passmore, Planner V (Zoning); Mark Winogrond Planner III 
and Director of Residential Zoning Study; Robert Feldman,. Planner III; G^cy Craft, 
Planner II; Carol Sugarman, Planner I; and Lee Woods, Secretary. 

Gerald Adams represented the San Francisco Examiner and Dan Borsuk represented 
the San Francisco Progress. 

Mark Winogrond, Planner III and Director of Residential Zoning Study said that 
this was the sec nd in a final series of hearings before the Commission regarding 
proposed comprehensive changes to the text of the City Planning Code and to the 
Zoning Map relating to residential districts and development. 

Mr. Wingrond further said: 

"On May 18, 1978, after nearly five months of public hearings and careful 
testing, refinement and redrafting of provisions first presented to the Com- 
mission on November 29, 1977, the Planning Department presented recommended 
changes to both the proposed text and maps. Those recommendations are the 
subject of tonight's hearing. Before the Commission hears from. the public, 
I would like to briefly summarize the testimony to date and the proposed text 
changes, then ask Robert Feldman to summarize the map changes, and have Gary 
Craft give a very brief status report on the EIR. 

"GENERAL NATUR E O F THE COMMENTS 

"The January, February and March meetings were characterized by intense 
and sometimes spirited testimony. There was much disagreement with the pro- 
posals before the Commission, and although most frequently, the disagreement 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -2- JUNE 13, 1978 

was as to degree of control rather than the objectives, the objectives were 
also challenged. Some speakers questioned the wisdom of preserving older 
dwellings in view of the strong demand for new housing, often consisting 
of smaller dwellings units, while others questioned the need for new housing 
given declining population figures and the relative soundness of existing 
residential units and neighborhoods. Many statements supported the controls 
for some areas of the City, while requesting less restrictive controls for 
other areas. The points of disagreement tended to be emphasized by speakers 
rather than those of agreement. Whereas earlier meetings had generally 
been dominated by proponents of the proposals, these meetings appeared to 
have an approximately even mix of proponents and opponents. 

"Most speakers recognized the undesirable ccnseqqencas of the higher 
density apartment buildings that had encroached upon smaller dwellings under 
the existing zoning ordinance, and had caused the wave of zoning reclassifi- 
cation requests from neighborhood associations for 'down-zoning' and event- 
ually this comprehensive zoning study of all residential areas of the City. 
Still, many speakers wanted to achieve higher densities, or higher and longer 
buildings, on their individual properties. In requests for such changes, the 
need for additional housing units, rising rents and costs of new houses, and 
rising taxes were recurring themes. Providing a variety of housing types in 
all neighborhoods was often mentioned. Those who wished to develop properties 
stated that new dwelling units should be added in existing residential neigh- 
borhoods; those who wished to preserve the status quo for their existing 
neighborhoods said additional dwelling units could be provided on under- 
utilized commercial and industrial land, particularly in the eastern and 
south of Market Street areas of the City. Of course, the proposed residential 
zoning standards will permit the development of r.ew housing theoretically 
enough for 20 years according tt the EIR. The challenge to the Department 
then is to develop practical programs that will help create appropriate 
housing opportunities, and that will promote the use of such opportunities 
when they do occur. 

"A major topic of concern mentioned by many speakers, the procedural 
requirements of the City Planning Code or practices of the staff, was not 
actually a subject of the residential zoning proposals. Both residents and 
builders expressed concern about delays in enforcement of the standards of 
the City Planning Code. Residential groups felt enforcement against zoning 
violations was haphazard and took far too long. Builders stressed costly 
delays resulting from slow processing of applications for building permits, 
variances, conditional uses and zoning changes. Unfair treatment of devel- 
opers in contrast to neighborhood associations was stressed by builders, while 
residents complained that they were not always given a chance to be heard. 

These concerns are already under study by the Department, and proposed 
changes to the code, and to operating procedures of the Department staff and 
City Planning Commission, will be presented to the Commission later this year. 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -3- JUNE 13, 1978 

"Testimony was also received concerning various problems related to 
trends occurring in local shopping districts, zoned both C-l and C-2. 
Changes in the zoning standards and in the specific districts shown on the 
zoning map were suggested. Because policies for commercial and industrial 
districts have not yet been established firmly in the Master Plan, and 
studies for implementing such policies still must be made, thorough responses 
to most of these suggestions can not occur within the time schedule set for 
the residential zoning changes. 

"Most of the concern over permitted uses dealt with the need to provide 
incentives for development of low- and moderate- income housing, but these 
concerns do not appear to be solvable through zoning techniques. 

"The substantive changes recommended for Article 2 include: 

- allowing an additional dwelling unit whenever a fraction of 3/4 or 
more of the required lot area is present. 

- allowing the double density provision to apply to handicapped persons 
as well as the elderly. 

- allowing the double density provision for elderly and handicapped 

to apply to single-family districts as well as higher density districts. 

- increasing the size of child care facilities not requiring special 
review from 10 kids to 12 kids. This will then conform to State law. 

"Four amendments to Article 2 have been presented at the Commission's 
requests, but without a staff recommendation. They are: 

- making more restrictive the density provisions on large sites in 
RH districts. 

- including certain institutional uses as conditional uses in RH-1, 
RH-l(S) and RH-l(D) as well as other residential districts. 

- allowing philanthropic facilities in RH and RM districts by 
conditional use; and 

- allowing C-l and C-2 uses by conditional use in designated landmarks. 
"Most comments concerning the substance of the residential zoning text 

dealt with the contents of Article 1.2, controlling dimensions, areas and 
other aspects of buildings and lots. 

"Both more restrictive and less restrictive controls were suggested, 
while clarification of a number of provisions was also requested. In general, 
the staff response has been to liberalize aspects of the controls so that 
greater design flexibility and increased opportunity for a variety of dwelling 
unit type is provided. 

"Specifically, the substantive changes are: 

- two amendments to the front setback rule to give greater flexibility 
on corner lots and on basically undeveloped blocks. 

- instituting a simple 257» rear yard requirement in single-family dis- 
tricts. 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -4- JUNE 13, 1978 

- removal of the private usable open space requirement in all districts, 
while retaining the open space requirement itself. 

- increasing flexibility in the bay window provision; and 

- modification of the curb cut limitation to reduce its impact 
on buildings only one lot wide. 

"Five minor changes are proposed to the parking and loading requirements. 
Each adds consistency or clarification. 

"One important addition is proposed for Aicicle 1.7. This change would 
allow the reconstruction of earthquake-hazardous unreinforced masonry build- 
ings to their existing size regardless of present zoning restrictions. This 
is an implementation of the policies of the City's comprehensive plan. 

"In all, 35 text changes are recommended to the Commission." 

Carol Sugarman, Planner I, commenting on the proposed maps said: 

"The staff received more than 400 requests from property owners and 
neighborhood groups to change the proposed zoning maps which had been develr 
oped by the Residential Zoning Study staff; most of these requests were re- 
ceived by the Department after the initiation of the revised zoning proposals 
on December 8, 1977. The last hearing on this mapping matter was held on 
March 7 and the deadline for submittal of these requests for zoning changes 
was March 10. New yellow request forms for additional requests for changes 
on the maps are available in the lobby and at the Department offices and 
should be submitted within the next two weeks. 

"During February and March, the staff mapped all of the requests on 
working maps, including several overlays for those areas which were the sub- 
ject of group requests as well as from individuals. During April the staff 
made a number of field trips to all the streets involved city-wide and re- 
evaluated the proposed mapping in light of the comments and proposals of the 
public. In this re-evaluation of the proposed zoning, the same basic criteria 
were used that had been used for the original mapping in 1976. The purpose 
remained the same: to map new residential zoning districts in a manner that 
would preserve the unique residential neighborhoods of the city while at the 
same time allowing for reasonable and harmonious new construction, and re- 
novation, to meet the housing needs of the city. The ten criteria used for 
re-evaluation, are a modification of the criteria listed in the report on 
residential zoning, the sixteen-page tabloid distributed to all property 
owners in December of last year. 

"The Residential Zoning Study staff then prepared a set of maps with 
their rec mmendations for zoning changes based on their field analysis. These 
maps were thoroughly discussed at special departmental meetings in which the 
senior zoning staff and the neighborhood liaison staff fully participated. 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -5- JUNE 13, 1978 

These sessions, which were usually scheduled for whole afternoons during 
late April were often heated professional debates at which many points of 
view were aired. The results of these meetings were a set of revisions 
which were then reviewed and approved by the Director and prepared by the 
Graphics staff. These recommended maps are displayed in the lobby with 
recommended changes colored in. 

"The basic criterion at all times was whether the proposed zoning would 
reflect the existing character of each neighborhood as to building-type and 
density, that is, the number of units per lot. Most of the requests for 
change in the proposed zoning, were not acted upon by the staff because they 
would, in the opinion of the staff, result in zoning out of character with 
the neighborhood. 

"The staff took a fresh look at each zoning situation and in many cases 
came up with a new solution that is intended to meet the needs of the prop- 
erty owners, the residents of the neighborhoods, and the other concerned 
parties. 

"The staff report presented to the Commission on May 18, 1978, lists 
405 individual specific map change requests. Of these, the staff recommends 
that 72 or 18% be granted and the zoning be changed to the district requested 
and that 36 more be changed to a district intermediate between that origin- 
ally proposed on the December 8 maps and that requested by the property 
owners. This totals 108 changes or 26% of the 405 requests. 

"In summary, the staff is recommending that the proposed zoning be 
changed for 3500 properties city-wide, with a net increase in potential 
dwelling units on these properties of 5766 units." 

Dr. Frank Hinman of the Russian Hill Improvement Association, described an 
area near North Point and Hyde Streets. This 6-block area should be zoned RC-1, 
not C-2, he said. Also, North Point Street between Larkin and Hyde Streets should 
be RH-2, he suggested. 

Mr. Charles Briar represented property owners in the downtown area at 465 
O'Farrell, 449 O'Farrell and 55 Mason Streets. He said that his clients were con- 
cerned with the discontinuance of the R-5 district and requested that the C-3-G be 
permitted to include densities permitted in the R-5 district. 

Mr. David Vogel of the Nob Hill Neighbors said that his organization favors 
reduced height limits for Nob Hill. If the ten (10) criteria for residential 
mapping were applied, he said, the proposed limits would be reduced. The proposed 
limits do not reflect existing use, he asserted. 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -6- JUNE 13, 1978 

Mr. Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning), said that a detailed study of the 
area resulting in reduced limits would delay the schedule for adoption of the 
Residential Zoning Study. Mr. Passmore said that it might be good if the Nob 
Hill Neighbors filed a formal reclassification application to reduce the height 
limits. 

Commissioner Bierman said that the matter of the height limits was most 
troubling. 

President Rosenblatt suggested that a detailed study was not immediately 
feasible because the Department was attempting to respond to Jarvis-Gann. He 
asked Mr. Vogel if he understood Mr. Passmore' s suggestion with respect to a 
reclassification. Mr. Vogel answered in the affirmative. 

Commissioner Bierman agreed that the proposed height limits did not reflect 
existing use. 

In the context of a reclassification, Mr. Winogrond suggested that meetings 
and discussions could begin after July 1, 1978. 

Mr. Robert Fries, Executive Director of the Nob Hill Neighbors, said that 
downzoning does not automatically make a lot unbuildable. He favored reduced 
limits. 

Mr. Andrew Butler expressed concern about the duration of the interim controls. 

Mr. Passmore said that two controls were in effect. Proposed mapping for 
the area reflected reduced density and any proposed building over forty (40 ') 
feet would require a Conditional Use and a Public Hearing. Further, Mr. Passmore 
said that if a reclassification application were filed, its provisions become 
the interim controls under Section 302(e) of the City Planning Code. 

Mr. Stanley Herstein favored reduced density and reduced heights for Nob Hill. 

Mr. Passmore said that it might be possible to hold a Commission hearing on 
heights while the Board of Supervisors were holding hearings on the Study. 

Ms. Linda Chapman suggested that notification of public hearings should go to 
tenants as well as owners. 

Jean La Rue, a homeowner in the area, proposed high-rises of no more than 
sixteen (16) stories. 

Mr. Sandy Walker of the Pacific Heights Residents Association said that the 
association supported the proposed map changes for the Pacific Heights area. 

Mr. John Kirkpatrick said that the Pacific Heights Association supports the 
Residential Zoning Study. 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -7- JUNE 13, 1978 

Ms. Charlotte Maeck expressed support of the Study. 

Mr. Ralph Coffman expressed support of the Study. 

Mr. E. 0. Tansine expressed concern about the proposed height limits for 
Nob Hill. He believed that height limits should be reduced. 

Mr. Andre Lawson expressed support for the Nob Hill Neighbors' request to 
reduce height limits. 

Ms. Lee Young, a Nob Hill resident, expressed opposition to increased height 
and density on Nob Hill. 

Ms. Marilyn Smulyan, President of the Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council, 
said that the council recommends, in commercial area.: where there exists a three 
(3) tier system of uses, RC zoning as opposed to commercial zoning. She proposed, 
also, that community uses be coupled with Conditional Use Authorization in resi- 
dential districts. 

Mr. Roger Boyer, Vice-President of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers and head of 
its Zoning Committee, proposed RH-3 as opposed to RM-2 for Telegraph Hill. The 
additional controls in RH-3, he said, are desirable. 

Mr. Winogrond stated that the proposed mapping, for Telegraph Hill, would be 
reexamined. 

Ms. Nan Roth of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, said that the North Beach Shop- 
ping area should be zoned RC-1 and not C-2. She suggested that the building at 
the northwest corner of Filbert Street and Grant Avenue had been inappropriately 
zoned C-2 and she requested that it be reconsidered. 

Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Brown recommended adoption of the Pacific Heights Assoc- 
iation's proposals. 

Mr. John Tolan, representing the Mardikian estate, requested that a property 
near Powell and Clay Streets be zoned RC-4 as the other corners are. 

Mr. William Guerrero, property owner at Cortland Street between Elsie and 
Bocana Streets, requested that his property remain C-2. 

Mr. Robert David of the Golden Gate Valley Neighborhood Association, expressed 
concern about an area of proposed RM-3 near Franklin and Filbert Streets. Mr. David 
suggested that this area be returned to either RH-2 rr RH-3. 

Mr. Perry Shers objected to the proposed RM-4 for areas downtown including 
the southside of Nob Hill; he felt it would make development infeasible. 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -8- JUNE 13, 1978 

Mr. Burkhardt stressed that the proposed RH-2 for Cortland Avenue between 
Elsie and Bocana Streets was inappropriate; he favored C-2. 

After some discussion, the speaker, Mr. Winogrond and Commissioner Bierman 
agreed that the RH-3 might be more appropriate for Cortland Avenue between Elsie 
and Bocana Streets. 

Commissioner Starbuck moved and Commissioner Nakashima seconded the motion to 
continue the public hearing to June 20, 1978. 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. 



Respectfully submitted, 



Lee Woods 
Secretary 



*/0 



DOCUMENTS D^PT. 



bitch z 3 

pun.ic lib: 

SAN FRANCISCO 
-^CltY PLANNING COMMISSION 
SUMMARY AND MINUTES 
OF THE 
SPECIAL MEETING 
TUESDAY 
JUNE 20, 1978 
PRESIDIO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 
450-30TH AVENUE AT CLEMENT STREET 
7:30 P.M. 

The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Tuesday, June 20, 1978, 
at 7:00 p.m. at Presidio Junior High School, 450-30th Avenue at Clement Street. 

PRESENT: Toby Rosenblatt, President; Susan J. Bierman, Yoshio Nakashima, 
Charles Starbuck, John Wentz, members of the City Planning 
Commission. 

ABSENT: Ina F. Dearman, Thomas Miller, Members of the City Planning 
Commission. 

The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Rai Y. 
Okamoto, Director of Planning; R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director - Implement- 
ation and Zoning Administrator; Robert W. Passmore, Planner V(Zoning) and 
Assistant Zoning Administrator; Mark Winogrond, Planner III and Director of 
Residential Zoning Study; Robert Feldman, Planner III; Carol Sugarman, Planner 
I; Gary Craft, Planner II; and Lee i/foods, Secretary. 

Gerald Adams represented the San Francisco Examiner and Dan Borsuk represen- 
ted the San Francisco Progress. 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF THE 
CITY PLANNING CODE AND PROPOSED CITY- WIDE REVISIONS TO THE ZONING MAP. 
(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF JUNE 13, 1978.) 

Mark Winogrond, Planner III and Director of Residential Zoning Study said 
that this was the third in a final series of hearings before the Commission regard- 
ing proposed comprehensive changes to the text of the City Planning Code and to 
the Zoning Map relating to residential districts and development. 

Mark Winogrond made the following statement: 

"On May 18, 1973, after nearly five months of public hearings and 
careful testing, refinement and redrafting of provisions first presented to 
the Commission on November 29, 1977, the Planning Department presented 
recommended changes to both the proposed text and maps. Those recommenda- 
tions are the subject of tonight's hearing. Before the Commission hears 
from the public, I would like to briefly summarize the testimony to date 
and the proposed text changes, then ask Robert Feldman to summarize the 
map changes, and have Gary Craft give a very brief status report on the 
EIR. 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -2- JUNE 20, 1978 

" General Nature of the Comments 

"The January, February and March meetings were characterized by intense 
and sometimes spirited testimony. There was much disagreement with the pro- 
posals before the Commission, and although most frequently, the disagreement 
was as to degree of control rather than the objectives, the objectives were 
also challenged. Some speakers questioned the wisdom of preserving older 
dwellings in view of the strong demand for new housing, often consisting of 
smaller dwelling units, while others questioned the need for new housing 
given declining population figures and the relative soundness of existing 
residential units and neighborhoods. Many statements supported the controls 
for some areas of the City, while requesting less restrictive controls for 
other areas. The points of disagreement tended to be emphasized by speakers 
rather than those of agreement. Whereas, earlier meetings had generally been 
dominated by proponents of the proposals, these meetings appeared to have an 
approximately even mix of proponents and opponents. 

"Most speakers recognized the undesirable consequences of the higher 
density apartment buildings that had encroached upon smaller dwellings under 
the existing zoning ordinance, and had caused the wave of zoning reclassifi- 
cation requests from neighborhood associations for 'down-zoning' and event- 
ually this comprehensive zoning study of all residential areas of the City. 
Still, many speakers wanted to achieve higher densities, or higher and longer 
buildings, on their individual properties. In requests for such changes, the 
need for additional housing units, rising rents and costs of new houses, and 
rising taxes were recurring themes. Providing a variety of housing types in 
all neighborhoods was often mentioned. Those who wished to develop properties 
stated that new dwelling units should be added in existing residential neigh- 
borhoods; those who wished to preserve the status quo for their existing 
neighborhoods said additional dwelling units could be provided on under- 
utilized commercial and industrial land, particularly in the eastern and 
south of Market Street areas of the City. Of course, the proposed resi- 
dential zoning standards will permit the development of new housing 
theoretically enough for zO years The Challenge to the Department tnen 
is to develop pratical programs that will help create appropriate housing 
opportunities, and that will promote the use of such opportunities when 
thev do occur. 

"AJnajor topic of concern mentioned by many speakers, the procedural 
requirements of the City Planning Code or practices of the staff, was not 
actually a subject of the residential zoning proposals. Both residents 
and builders expressed concern about delays in enforcement of the standards 
of the City Planning Code. Residential groups felt enforcement against 
zoning violations was haphazard and too far too long. Builders stressed 
costly delays resulting from slow processing of applications for building 
permits, variances, conditional uses and zoning changes. Unfair treatment 
of developers in contrast to neighborhood associations was stressed by 
builders, while residents complained that they were not always given a chance 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -3- JUNE 20, 1978 

to be heard. These concerns are already under study by the Department, and 
proposed changes to the Code, and to operating procedures of the Department 
staff and City Planning Commission, will be presented to the Commission later 
this year. 

"Testimony was also received concerning various problems related to 
trends occurring in local shopping districts, zoned both C-l and C-2. Changes 
in the zoning standards and in the specific districts shown on the zoning 
map were suggested. Because policies for commercial and industrial districts 
have not yet been established firmly in the Master Plan, and studies for 
implementing such policies still must be made, thorough responses to most 
of these suggestions can not occur within the time schedule set for the 
Residential Zoning Changes. 

"Most of the concern over permitted uses dealt with the need to provide 
incentives for development of low- and mode rate -income housing, but these 
concerns do not appear to be solvable through zoning techniques. 

"The substantive changes recommended for Article 2 include: 

- allowing an additional dwelling unit whenever a fraction of 3/4 
or more of the required lot area is present. 

- allowing the double density provision to apply to handicapped 
persons as well as the elderly. 

- allowing the double density provision for elderly and handi- 
capped to apply to single-family districts as well as higher 
density districts. 

- increasing the size of child care facilities not requiring 
special review from 10 kids to 12 kids. This will then 
conform to State law. 

"Four amendments to Article 2 have been presented at the Commission's 
requests, but without a staff recommendation. They are: 

- making more restrictive the density provisions on large sites 
in RH districts. 

- including certain institutional uses as conditional uses in 
RH-1, RH-l(S) and RH-l(D) as well as other residential districts 

- allowing philanthropic facilities in RH and RM districts by 
conditional use; and 

- allowing C-l and C-2 uses by conditional use in designated 
landmarks. 

"Most comments concerning the substance of the residential zoning text 
dealt with the contents of Article 1.2, controlling dimensions, areas and 
other aspects of buildings and lots. 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -4- JUNE 20, 1978 

"Both more restrictive and less restrictive controls were suggested, 
while clarification of a number of provisions was also requested. In 
general, the staff response has been to liberalize aspects of the controls 
so that greater design flexibility and increased opportunity for a variety 
of dwelling unit type is provided. 

"Specifically, the substantive changes are: 

- two amendments to the front setback rule to give greater 
flexibility on corner lots and on basically undeveloped blocks. 

- instituting a simple 25% rear yard requirement in single-family 
districts. 

- removal of the private usable open space requirement in all 
districts, while retaining the open space requirement itself. 

- increasing flexibility in the bay window provision; and 

- modification of the curb cut limitation to reduce its impact 
on buildings only one lot wide. 

"Five minor changes are proposed to the parking and loading require- 
ments. Each adds consistency or clarification. 

"One important addition is proposed for Article 1.7. This change 
would allow the reconstruction of earthquake -hazardous unreinforced masonry 
buildings to their existing size regardless of present zoning restrictions. 
This is an implementation of the policies of the City's comprehensive plan. 

"in all, thirty-five text changes are recommended to the Commission." 

Commenting on the proposed maps, Carol Sugarmar ., Planner I, made the following 
statement: 

"The staff received more than 400 requests from property owners and 
neighborhood groups to change the proposed zoning maps which had been de- 
veloped by the Residential Zoning Study staff; most of these requests were 
received by the Department after initiation of the revised zoning proposals 
on December 8, 1977. The last hearing on this mapping matter was held on 
March 7 and the deadline for submittal of these requests for zoning changes 
was March 10. New yellow request forms for additional requests for changes 
on the maps are available in the lobby and at the Department offices and 
should be submitted within the next two weeks. 

"During February and March, the staff mapped all of the requests on 
working maps, including several overlays for those areas which were the sub- 
ject of group requests as well as from individuals. During April, the staff 
made a number of field trips to all the streets involved city-wide and re- 
evaluated the proposed mapping in light of the comments and proposals of the 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -5- JUNE 20, 1978 

public. In this re -evaluation of the proposed zoning, the same basic cri- 
teria were used that had been used for the orgi. al mapping in 1976. The 
purpose remained the same: to map new residential zoning districts in a 
manner that would preserve the unique residential neighborhoods of the City 
while at the same time allowing for reasonable and harmonious new construc- 
tion, and renovation, to meet the housing needs of the City. The ten cri- 
teria used for re -evaluation, are a modification of the criteria listed in 
the report on residential zoning, the sixteen-page tabloid distributed to 
all property owners in December of last year. 

"The Residential Zoning Study staff then prepared a set of maps with 
their recommendations for zoning changes based on their field analysis. These 
maps were thoroughly discussed at special departmental meetings in which the 
senior zoning staff and the neighborhood liaison staff fully participated. 
These sessions, which were usually scheduled for whole afternoons during 
late April were often heated professional debates at which many points 
of view were aired. The results of these meetings were a set of revisions 
which were then reviewed and approved by the Director and prepared by the 
Graphics staff. These recommended maps are displayed in the lobby with 
recommended changes colored in. 

"The basic criterion at all times was whether the proposed zoning would 
reflect the existing character of each neighborhood as to building-type and 
density, that is, the number of units per lot. Most of the requests for 
change in the proposed zoning, were not acted upon by the staff because they 
would, in the opinion of the staff, result in zoning out of character with 
the neighborhood. 

"The staff took a fresh look at each zoning situation and in many cases 
came up with a new solution that is intended to neet the needs of the prop- 
erty owners, the residents of the neighborhoods, and the other concerned 
parties. 

"The staff report presented to the Commission on May 18, 1978 lists 
405 individual specific map change requests. Of these, the staff recommends 
that 72 or 18% be granted and the zoning be changed to the district requested 
and that 36 more be changed to a district intermediate between that originally 
proposed on the December 8 maps and that requested by the property owners. 
This total 108 changes or 26% of the 405 requests. 

"In summary the staff is recommending that the proposed zoning be changed 
for 3500 properties city-wide, with a net increase in potential dwelling units 
on these properties of 5766 units." 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -6- JUNE 20, 1978 

Don Wong of the Chinatown Coalition for Better Housing, urged the Commission 
to reject the EIR (EE76.182) because it did not adequately discuss or describe the 
Residential Zoning Study impact on poor and low income persons. Unquestionably, 
the cost of housing will increase, he said. 

Ms. Judy Seto of the Chinatown Coalition for Better Housing, urged rejection 
of the EIR. She said that it did not provide adequate mitigation measures. Sub- 
sidies, she said, were no solution. She said that filtration, as discussed in 
the EIR, would work only where there was excess housing, but that it did not re- 
present a housing choice. She further said that commercial and industrial areas 
were inappropriate as housing sites. 

Mr. Gordon Chin of the Chinatown Neighborhood Resource Center, said that he 
opposed the Residential Zoning Study. He said that new housing was needed in 
Chinatown and that rent increases were forcing many people out of the area. Mr. 
Chin said that the EIR needed more concrete mitigation measures. 

Ms. Jennie Lew of the Chinatown Neighborhood Resource Center, said that the 
study was an effort to preserve certain types of housing in certain types of 
neighborhoods. We, she said, reject the study. 

Mr. Bob Bjordquist of 155 Christopher Street, requested that RH-1 be re- 
tained in the Forest Knolls area, rather than the proposed RH-l(D). 

Mr. Henry Schindell said that he did want C-2 zoning, and that he did not 
agree with the proposed RH-2 on his property. He said that his property at 
Geneva Avenue and Carter Street was proposed as RH-2 while surrounded by C-2. 
Mr. Schindell described his property and said that residential development was 
virtually impossible because of conditions on the lot. His desire was to construct 
a trailer park on the site. 

President Rosenblatt asked the Commission if anyone wished to comment. 

Commissioner Wantz asked the staff if they had a recommendation. 

Mr. Passmore said that a proposal to convert residential property to commer- 
cial zoning without prior notification of surrounding property owners would re- 
quire separate notice and that possibly a hearing could be scheduled in August. 

Mr. Larry Lee, a homeowner at 9th Avenue and Kirkham, said that he had re- 
quested mapping which would permit him a 4-unit apartment building. He said that 
there were four unit buildings on either side of his house. He said the proposed 
classification of the area would drive up costs and would create even more of a 
housing shortage. He said that Mr. Passmore had told him that 90% of his neigh- 
bors wanted downzoning. Mr. Lee said that he did not want to be devalued. 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -7- JUNE 20, 1978 

Commissioner Bierman, responding to Mr. Lee, said that people were concerned 
about parking, traffic and sunshine in backyards, and that there was a move in 
San Francisco for more comfortable neighborhoods. 

Mr. Lee responded by saying that some of the middle income households would 
not be able to afford living in San Francisco. 

Gardiner Johnson, a property owner at 1030 Green Street, said that his lot 
was 47 feet wide and that it was proposed for RII-2, while with the exception of 
two buildings on either side of it, everything else in the block was proposed for 
RM-2 classification. He said that RH-2 classification was not justified and re- 
quested RM-2 for his lot. 

President Rosenblatt asked the staff to take a more detailed look into the 
matter. 

Mr. Oliver Harris, referring to property on the southwestern corner of 34th. 
and Vincente Street, gave his thanks for rezoning it and said that it had been 
commercial for 25 years. 

Mr. William Martin, representing Dr. Kitchen at 1283 22nd Avenue, requested 
that a C-2 designation remain as opposed to RH-2. He said that it had been C-2 
since 1960. He asked how those requesting mapping changes would be notified. 
Mr. Winogrond responded by saying that staff responses to comments and requests 
for changes would be given to the Commission on Tuesday, June 27, 1978. 

Ms. Charlotte Elam, said that she represented three Richmond district asso- 
ciations which did not want downzoning. These associations, she said, included 
Francisco Heights Civic Association, Richmond District Council and Richmond Dis- 
trict Protection Association. She said that these associations would oppose any 
text changes which would restrict use of residential property. She further 
said that hundreds of property owners were not oroperiy notified. People do not 
realize, she said, that their properties are being downzoned. 

Mr. Winogrond responded by saying that the rezoning »f I960 tn ?:he Richmond dis- 
trict had not required notice, however, all owners had been sent notices regarding 
the present re-zoning. In terms of the staff recommendations to the Commission 
dated June 18, 1978, Mr. Winogrond said, a post card was sent to each property 
owner who requested map changes. 

Commissioner Bierman responded to Ms. Elam by saying that everything that 
had been done by the Connission had been announced and that it had done its best. 

Ms. Elam asked why the full restrictions were not spelled out. There are 
dire effects, she said, which have not been spelled nut 

Mr. Patrick Mulligan, a property owner at 2936 Lyon Street, requested that 
his property be zoned C-2 and not RH-2 as proposed. 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -8- JUNE 20, 1978 

Ms. Jeanette Del Debbio of 1619 Clement Street, said that she opposed RH-2, 

and asked why she was not notified. Mr. Winogrond responded by saying that it 

was proposed RH-3, that the existing zoning was C*2, but that possibly there 
could be a reduction of one unit. 

Mr. Merv Silverberg, representing Sacramento Street Improvement Association, 
urged the Commission to follow a rational and logical approach to control growth 
in the C-2 strip along Sacramento Street from Spruce to Lyon Streets, He sug- 
gested that there was a need for healthy growth which would benefit both the 
residential and commercial communities. 

Ms. Marie Potz said that she was perfectly happy with the downzoning in her 
block of 1024 Anza Street. She said that on her block there was a huge 3-story 
monstrosity and that she would not wish this on anyone. Further, she said that 
there was no real housing shortage in San Francisco but that there had been over- 
construction of apartments. What we need, she said, was more single-family houses. 

Mr. George Ju, a real estate broker with ffices at 12th Avenue and Clement 
Street, asked why the pr perty a; 302 and 306 2nd Avenue wh ch xras C-2, was 
being pn. posed as RH-2. K&rk Winogrond replied that the staff had recommended 
residential zoning f r ■ kese tw pieces >f pr perty as there was no existing 
commercial, use. Mr. Ju sa : d he pposed the change and asked why 1.6 was so 
drastic Mr. Winogrond repl ed that the proposed zoning was recommended in rder 
t. pr tect the residential districts fr n growing commercial expansion along 
side residential streets. Mr. Winogr nd further said that in respect to these 
two properties, the staff had received many letters from people wanting to retain 
resident : ai. zoning than from those opposing it. Mr Ju said that 50% of property 
owners pposed downzoning. 

Mr. Ricllard Szeto said that owners of property at 302, 306, 322, 334, 344, 354 
358, 362 and 374, 2nd Avenue, had requested retention of C-2 zoning. 

Mr. Albert Boucher of Richmond Council said that the majority of people in 
Richmond district opposed downzoning. He said that what was needed was better, 
not less apartments. He asked why he was not informed of the disposition of hi-J 
requests, and why he could not get R-2 zoning. He said that there was a motel, 
duplexes and flats in the 100 block of Seal Rock Drive. Mr. Winogrond responded 
saying that those who made requests were notified that responses could be obtained 
at the Department. 

President Rosenblatt said that the staff would take another look at tie 
property in the 100 block of Seal Rock. 

Mr. Charles Le Comte, property owner at 427-32nd Avenue, said that he did 
not get any notification when his property was rezoned. Mr. Passmore replied that 
in terms of proposed density, his property was not being downzoned. 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -9- JUNE 20, 1978 

Ms. Tony Van Kampen, representing the owner of 6898 Geary Boulevard, said that 
the owner opposed the proposed RM-2 zoning and that he wanted RC-2 for commercial 
use on the ground floor. 

Mr. Charles Morgan, representing Mr. Horn of the Villa Terrace area, Twin Peaks, 
said that to make Mr. Horn's property RH-1 would be spot zoning. The difference 
tetween RH-1 and RH-2 in terms of traffic safety, he said, is minimal „ He said his 
clients had purchased the property as R-3 and he favored RH-2 classification. Mr. 
Passmore said that the Villa Terrace was part of a larger area being reconsidered. 

Ms. Detchie Bolder said that she lived at 9th Avenue and California Street. 
She said that in a period of approximately one year, 40 demolition permits were 
issued for the Richmond district. Some change, she added, is needed to stop the 
demolishing of single-family homes in the Richmond district. 

Mr. Robert Katzman, owner and resident of 117 Broad Street, made the follow- 
ing statement: 

"I am the owner and resident at 117/ Broad Street (Map 12) -(7113/41) . I 
submitted a formal request for a zoning change (from RH-2 to C-2) for 117 
Broad Street when I attended the February meeting. 

"This building is a classic San Francisco Victorian Firehouse. It was 
built in 1896 and actively served the Ocean View Community until 1974. 

"I purchased Engine Company #33 from the City of San Francisco with the 
personal commitment of preserving this San Francisco Landmark. There are very 
few unconventional buildings so well suited to opening it's doors as a neigh- 
borhood business... as is this Firehouse. Brocd Street,., between Capitol 
and Plymouth... is composed of single family dwellings and duplexes (many of 
which are Victorian structures), apartment buildings, and approximately 8 
commercial businesses. The Firehouse is separated from the row of 6 commer- 
cial properties by an 8-unit apartment building (zoned RH-2) . Broad Street 
is very wide, has sufficient parking and excellent public transportation. 
In similar San Francisco neighborhoods there are restored firehouses being 
used as studios, offices and local trade. Engine Company #33 should benefit 
the Ocean view district in a similar manner. While developers continue to 
destroy the specific character of many of our neighborhoods... I am asking 
you to allow a proud and classic building to serve ?' ts community. Assuming 
that you are honestly interested in maintaining the balance of neighorhoods 
and owner-operated businesses... while preserving the history and character 
of each unique San Francisco neighborhood... I am asking you to reconsider 
my request for this zoning change. 

"Bob Feldman informed me that my property was denied a change in zoning 
because of... (your notation system) 'A', 'D' and 'E'. 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -10- JUNE 20, 1978 

"A (Prevailing Land Use)... The prevailing land use to the 
East of the Firehouse is commercial. The Firehouse could 
just as easily been classified RC-2 as RH-2. 

"D (Spot Zoning)... This unconventional building was previously 
used as a fire station... a 24 hour community service... 
which could be considered commercial. 

"E (Minor Adjustment Boundry)... While living on Broad Street 

it has become obvious that its present businesses serve only 
limited portion of the neighborhood. Commercially, the 
Firehouse would definitely compliment the present businesses 
while creating a positive course towards neighborhood improvement." 

Mr. Passmore said that the staff would take another look at the proposed zoning 
for Mr. Katzman's property. 

Mr. James Coist, a resident at 1259-16th Avenue, said that small business 
should be given protection in the small commercial zones. He requested that the 
RC-2 zoning be retained. 

Ms. Eleanor Edwards, a resident at 304-2nd Avenue, said that 302-306 2nd Avenue 
had never been used commercially. She said with respect to Mr. Szeto's statement 
that 322-2nd Avenue was an apartment building , that she did not believe that 
the owner lived there. She said that she did not want Union Street on Clement 
Street. Ms. Edwards provided the Commission with a petition signed by residents 
who opposed commercial zoning on 2nd Avenue. 

Mr. Peter McCrea of 1024 Lake Street said that generally he supported the work 
of the staff of the Residential Zoning Study. He said that the area on Lake Street, 
between 2nd and 10th Avenues, should be zoned as R-3. To zone St. Anne's as RH-2, 
he said, was a mistake. Mr. Passmore said that RH-2 zoning for St. Anne's was for 
the sake of construction of the proposed new Home. 

Ms. Rose Yee, a property owner at 4045 California Street said that her property 
had been downzoned from RC-2 to residential. Mr. WLnogrond replied that that zoning 
was interim only until the Commerce and Industry Element was completed, and that 
they were holding off on new RC designations until further studies were completed. 

Mr. William Clarke, a resident at 1621 Lake Street, and a member of the Board 
of Directors of Planning Association for the Richmond (PAR) said that PAR supported 
the Residential Zoning Study. However, he said that the proposed RM-1 on Lake 
Street, between 14th and 19th Avenues, Was of some concern to them. He further 
said that they would submit a formal request in that respect. 

Mr. Stephen Halpern, representing the Golden Gate Heights Association, said 
that the mapping was accurate for their area. What was needed, he said, is 
tightening up controls for variances and Cchd.i tinnat Uses 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -11- JUNE 20, 1978 

Ms. Rose Anne Feiner of 349-7th Avenue requested that the proposed zoning of 
her property be changed from RM-1 to RM-2. 

Mr. Jonathan Buckley, a resident of the Richmond district, speaking on behalf 
of PAR, said that they supported the Residential Zoning Study and believed that the 
zoning for the Richmond area should be left as proposed in 1977. Mr. Buckley said 
that the proposed major fraction provision encouraged more demolition. The pro- 
posed garage door provision was also too lenient; the code should permit the' gnrage 
doot to conform td the neighborhood .pattern, he said. 

Ms. Veronica Tedeschi requested that her property at 2526 Clement be zoned 
commercial. She said that her property was the only one in the block excluded from 
the commercial designation. She said that another plsce of property at 7000 Geary 
Boulevard was also requesting commercial designation and that it had always been 
commercial. Also the property at 1410 Clement Street should be zoned commercial, 
she said. 

Mr. Winogrond, responding to Ms. Tedeschi, said that with respect to the prop- 
erty at 1410 Clement and the area between 2nd and 15th Avenues on Clement, the 
area was once commercial. But, he said, increased commercial designation was de- 
layed until the completion of the Department's Commerce and Industry zoning study. 

Mr. Bill Blomberg, owner of a property at Anza Street, between 39th and 40th 
Avenues, requested clarification of what was being proposed for his property. Mr. 
Winogrond replied that the proposed zoning was RH-2, which would permit typically 
two units per lot. 

Mrs. G. Bland Piatt, President of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, 
said that the Board supported uses other than residential in landmarks or in his- 
toric districts by conditional use. She said that the Board would like to dis- 
courage landmark designations simultaneously with the conditional use process. She 
said that the Landmarks Board also had some concern that the 15 foot maximum set- 
back provision was not sufficiently restrictive. This could affect historic dis- 
trict, she said. Further, Mrs. Piatt said that the Board had some concern xri.th the 
garage door provision. She said that these concerns will be discussed in more de- 
tail with the staff. 

Commissioner Wentz moved to close the public hearing, Commissioner Nakashima 
seconded and the motion was carried unanimously. 

Commissioner Wentz also moved to continue the meeting to June 22, 1978. 
Commissioner Nakashima seconded it and the motion wa_, carried unanimously. 



The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. 



Respectfully subm'iired, 

Lee Wood 8 
Sec re'" a ry 



c«. ■ a LIBRARY 

SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
SUMMARY AND MINUTES 
OF THE 
SPECIAL MEETING 
TUESDAY 
JUNE 27, 1978 
LURIE ROOM, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 
5:00 P.M. 

The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Tuesday, 
June 27, 1978, at 5:00 p.m., in Lurie Room, San Francisco Public 
Library, Civic Center. 

PRESENT: Toby Rosenblatt, President; Susan J. Bierman, Thomas 
Miller, Yoshio Naksshima, Charles Starbuck, and John 
Wentz, members of the City Planning Commission. 

ABSENT: Ina F. Dearman, member of the City Planning Commission 

The staff sf the Department of City Planning was represented by 
Rai Y. Okamoto, Director of Planning; R. Spencer Steele, Assistant 
Director-Itrplementation (Zoning Administrator); Robert Pasamore, 
Planner V (Zoning); Mark Winogrcnd, Planner III and Director of the 
Residential Zoning Study; Robert Feldman, Planner II; Gary Craft, 
Planner II; Carol Sugarman, Planner I; and Lee Woods, Secretary. 

Gerald Adams represented the San Francisco Examiner and Dan 
Borsuk represented the San Francisco Progress. 

EE76.182 - CONSIDERATION OF CERTIFICATION OF REVISED DRAFT 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COVERING THE PROPOSED 
AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP 
OF THE CITY PLANNING CODE AFFECTING RESIDENTIAL 
DISTRICTS AND DEVELOPMENT. 

Gary Craft, Planner II, made the following statement: 

"I would like to take the time to recognize the 
invaluable assistance from the graphics section and 
the secretaries in helping prepare the revised draft 
EIR and the comments and responses. These two sections 
seldom receive any recognition of the valuable contri- 
bution they make to the functioning of the Planning 
Department. In particular, I would like to give special 
thanks to Sheila Saleh, who graciously typed the 185 page 
revised draft EIR and the comments and responses. Because 
of her efforts, I am able to make my presentation tonight. 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -2- JUNE 27, 1978 

"My presentation tonight concerns the comments and re- 
sponses for the revised draft Environmental Impact Report 
covering the proposed citywide residential zoning amendments. 
The revised draft EIR was prepared in response to comments 
made on the initial draft EIR, dated December 13, 1977. A 
synopsis of these comments has been included in the list of 
comments and responses on the revised draft. The EIR was 
prepared as required by State law and addresses the impacts 
adoption of the proposed zoning may have on San Francisco's 
natural, physical and socio-economic environment. As stated 
on page 23 of the revised draft, the focus of the EIR is 
limited to identifying the broad effects which may possibly 
occur as a result of the proposed zoning. Section 15147 of 
the State EIR Guidelines state that a construction project 
will necessarily be more detailed in the specific effects of 
the project than will be an EIR on the adoption of a compre- 
hensive zoning ordinance because the effects of the construc- 
tion can be predicted with greater accuracy. The revised 
draft EIR for the proposed zoning amendments, however, does 
contain the necessary information, data, and analysis to en- 
able local officials to make a decision which intelligently 
takes into account all the environmental effects of the pro- 
posed zoning. Section 15150 of the State EIR Guidelines 
states that "an evaluation of the environmental effects of 
a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency 
of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably 
feasible". The revised draft EIR more than meets the State 
EIR Guidelines and is ready for certification following in- 
clusion of the comments and responses and the changes and 
additions suggested in the addendum. 

" Major Comments and Responses 

"A summary of the comments and responses will be included 
as chapter 13 of the final EIR. 

"The effect the proposed zoning will have on the low 
and moderate income households and the inadequacy of the 
mitigation measures to help alleviate the impact. On page 
99 of the revised draft, the following statement will be 
added (following fourth sentence, second paragraph): 

"The City's Housing Assistance Plan indicates the 
housing assistance needs of lower income households is 
increasing. (See 1977 and 1978 Community Development 
Program and Housing Assistance Plan - Mayor's Office 
of Community Development). The increase is due pri- 
marily to estimates of low-and-mode rate-income households 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -3- JUNE 27, 19 78 

that are employed in San Francisco and could be expected to 
reside in the City. The number of low and moderate-income 
households presently living in San Francisco under inade- 
quate conditions has declined. However, additional assist- 
ance is needed as indicated by Table IV-A, showing housing 
assistance needs of lower-income households. 

"Another major comment concerned the assumptions be- 
hind the demand projections. Assumptions are stated on page 
104 of the revised draft EIR. Changes in these trends will 
produce a different level of demand. The actual number of 
housing units that will be needed depends upon population 
growth, household size, and the desired vacancy rate. The 
demand for housing by 1990 with a 6% vacancy rate could 
range between 326,480 - 344,362 units. The proposed zoning 
would permit a sufficient number of housing units to be 
built to meet the projected demand. 

"A number of concerns about the inadequacy of the 
mitigation measures were cited by several community groups and 
individuals. Several new mitigation measures will be included 
in the final EIR: 

" Page 127 (to be inserted at the beginning of first 
paragraph) 

"In order to help increase the annual net addition 
to the City's housing supply, the City should explore the 
possibility of consolidating the review of development 
permits for new housing, including environmental review, 
variances, conditional uses, building permits, plan check- 
ing, and other review procc lures. The possibility of 
consolidating the review of subsidized projects should 
also be explored. Since the Department of City Planning 
cannot act unilaterally, the feasibility of consolidating 
the review of housing development by various agencies needs 
to be explored further. 

"The City should also explore the possibility of re- 
quiring new office buildings downtown to include or con- 
tribute toward new housing in the downtown area. 

" Page 122 (to be inserted before 1st sentence in first 
paragraph) 

"In particular, reduction of the off-street parking re- 
quired by the Planning Code for low and moderate housing pro- 
jects should be explored in order to provide an economic 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -4- JUNE 27, 19 78 

incentive for such projects resulting in an increase in the 
number of housing units. There may be some legal limitations 
which need to be explored before this recommendation can be 
implemented. The Planning Department should also explore 
the possibility of using P.U.D. procedures without any 
parcel size limitations so that low and moderate income 
housing can be exempt from the normal standards of the Code. 
The Redevelopment Agency presently has the ability to do 
this and this ability might be extended to a quasi-govern- 
mental agency which is specifically in the business of pro-- 
viding low and moderate income housing. The city should 
also assist developers of low and moderate income housing 
in finding suitable sites for new housing. 

" Page 126 (to be added to the end of the first paragraph) 

" The report on Commercial and Indus trial Ac tivity in 
San Francisco: Present Characteristics and Future Trends by 
Arthur D. Little projects a demand for 286.3 acres for com- 
mercial and industrial needs by the year 2000. The number of 
vacant commercial and industrial zoned land in 1970 was approx- 
mately 1,042 acres, thus some industrial land could be used 
for residential purposes. 

"Because the mitigation measures were considered inade- 
quate, several community groups recommended the Planning Com- 
mission not to approve the proposed zoning. 

"However, the inclusion of the additional mitigation 
measures which address these concerns should allow for a do 
pass recommendation. The Planning Department is also urged 
to take a more aggressive role and develop a strong housing 
program . 

" Addendum 

"Besides the additions cited above, several minor changes 
were also made to the text of the revised draft EIR and are 
included In the addendum. 

" Draft Resolution 

"A draft resolution has been prepared, the last three 
clauses of which read as follows : 

"WHEREAS, on June 26, 19 78, the Commission reviewed the 
final environmental impact report, and found that the con- 
tents of said report and the procedures through which it 



SUMMARY AND MINI TES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -5- JUNE 27, 1978 

was prepar id, publicized and reviewed comply with the pro- 
visions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the 
Guideline' of the Secretary for Resources and San Francisco 
r; quirements ; 

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning 
Commission does hereby find that the Final Environmental 
Impact J.eport, dated June 26, 1978, concerning EE76.182: 
Proposed amendments to the City Planning Code (both text 
and maf ) that would revise in their entirety the citywide 
zoning controls governing residential development in San 
Francisco, is adequate, accurate and objective, and does 
hereby Certify the Completion of said Report in compliance 
with the California Environmental Quality Act and the 
Stat\» Guidelines ; 

"AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Commission in 
certifying the completion of said Report does hereby find 
thf t the project as proposed would reduce the number of 
hoising units that could legally be built in San Francisco. 
As a result the cost of housing may increase, and that with 
increasing housing costs, some population groups may find it 
difficult to live in San Francisco. The proposed zoning will 
affect the low-and-moderate-income housh Ids more than any 
other group and that mitigation measures are proposed to 
help alleviate this impact." 

Commissioner Bierman said that she was troubled by the Resolution 
certifying the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The impact of re- 
cent development on the neighborhoods and the pressures of crowding 
is where the Residential Zoning Study had its beginning, she said. 
I do hope, she said, that the mitigation measure's can be implemented. 
The power, though, she added, is not all in the Department. She 
hoped there would be a chance for her to help. 

President Rosenblatt said that it occurred to him that the 
Resolution certifying completion of the EIR would be complete without 
the last "resolved" clause. 

Commissioner Nakashima said that the cost of housing in any event 
will continue to rise and that it seemed inappropriate to single out 
one particular cause for the increase. 

It was moved by Commissioner Nakashima, seconded by Commissioner 
Starbuck to approve the draft resolution with the deletion of the 
last "resolved" clause. The matter passed unanimously as City 
Planning Commission Resolution No. 7995. 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -6- JUNE 27, 1978 

ZT78.3 - CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE 
AMENDMENTS TO TEXT OF THE CITY PLANNING CODE PER- 
TAINING TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING. THESE AMENDMENTS 
WOULD REVISE, IN THEIR ENTIRETY, THE WRITTEN REGU- 
LATIONS GOVERNING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND USE 
IN SAN FRANCISCO, AMENDING CITY PLANNING CODE ARTICLES 
1, 2, 2.5, 3 and 6, DELETING ARTICLES 4 AND 5, AND 
ADDING ARTICLES 1.2, 1.5 AND 1.7. 

Mark Winogrond, Director of the Residential Zoning Study, made 
the following statement: 

"Today marks the end of the public hearing process 
before you regarding proposed comprehensive revisions to 
the regulations and maps governing residential development 
in San Francisco. 

"Throughout the prior weeks of this month, the Commission, 
for the third time since this Residential Zcning Study began 
held hearings in the neighborhoods to solicit citizen responses., 
responses particularly to the revised recommendations submitted 
in a report to you on May 18th. 

"Although the June hearings were basically characterized 
by unusually detailed testimony regarding specific mapping, 
as Carol Sugarman will talk about in a minute, there was also 
testimony regarding the text. This testimony was .?!most 
unanimously in support of the text provisions as proposed by 
the staff with a few exceptions: 

"- There was concern raised about allowing one additional 
dwelling unit when three-fourths of the required lot 
area is present . 

"- There was concern about the Proposed Amendment which 
would, in effect, exempt narrower buildings from the 
curb-cut limitation. 

"- There were a number of requests to restore the old 
R-5 density — one unit for each 125 square feet of 
lot area -- to the C-3, Downtown zoning districts. 

"- A coalition of residential and merchants groups in 

the Noe Valley area requested conditional use review 

for all eating and drinking establishments on 24th 
Street . 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -7- JUNE 27, 1978 

"The Department has recommended, in the report sub- 
mitted to you today, three additional text changes: 

"- The first would allow RC-1 uses in designated 
landmark buildings. A somewhat similar text 
amendment was presented in the memorandum of 
May 18th but without a staff recommendation 
for approval. This revised provision jLs_ 
something which the Department would recommend 
adopting . 

"- The second change would allow densities of at least 
one unit for each 125 square feet of lot area - the 
old R-5 density - in the C-3 districts. 

"- The third change is a technical one, clarifying 
that certain permitted obstructions are not 
permitted in required side yards. 

"With these changes, the Department is satisfied 
that you have before you a proposed zoning ordinance 
which will truly strike the desired balance between 
preservation and changes. 

"Of course, with any action taken today, and hope- 
fully subsequent action by the Board of Supervisors in the 
coming months, It should not be believed that the subject 
of residential re-zoning will come to a close. Indeed, 
Zoning Maps, especially, are thought of more and more as 
rather flexible tools and, as such, the Commission should 
expect to continue to receive formal requests for change - 
both upward and downward. 

"The Text, however, should become a relatively stable 
tool for guiding future development for at least a decade. 
Amendments will be necessary, of course, and refinements 
based upon experience are predictable. Nevertheless, these 
last four difficult years of uncertainty for both resident 
and developer may soon give way to a period of quiet certainty 
in which the neighborhoods are given their essential protection 
while the builders are given sufficient development flexibility. 
It has been a goal long sought after. 

"I'd now like to have Carol Sugarman discuss the Proposed 
Map Revisions." 

Carol Sugarman, Planner I, made the following statement about the 
proposed map revisions: 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -8- JUNE 27, 1978 

"During the past month, the Planning Commission and the 
staff received approximately 70 Map change requests from 
property owners and neighborhood groups in response to the 
May 18, 1978, staff memorandum. These requests, which were 
made at the three J une hearings in the neighborhoods and by 
correspondence to the Planning Commission and staff, could 
be characterized by their specific nature. Neighborhood 
groups, most of whom have closely monitored all previous 
staff zoning proposals, had studied the May 18, 1978, staff 
memorandum concerning the controls recommended for their areas, 

"Testimony from the neighborhood groups was varied. The 
Pacific Heights Association and the Friends of Noe Valley 
spoke in support of the proposals in their areas, with the 
Friends of Noe Valley calling for more Departmental enforce- 
ment activities. The Planning Association of the Richmond, 
Russian Hill Improvement Association, Golden Gate Valley 
Association, Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Haight-Ashbury 
Neighborhood Council, Twin Peaks Improvement Association, 
Eureka Valley Promotion Association, La Raz En Action Local 
and Potrero League of Active Neighbors gave testimony and 
submitted maps detailing areas of concurrence with proposed 
maps and requests for additional changes. 

"The San Francisco Council of District Merchants again 
spoke in opposition to changes in the existing commercial 
districts before the Department has completed a Comprehensive 
Commercial and Industrial Zoning Study. Many individual 
owners also testified and submitted requests, asking for 
a different zoning district than that the staff had recom- 
mended for their property. 

"The areas of greatest degree of public disagreement 
continued to be the tchmond District and Potrero Hill. 
Although the recommended zoning changes return the Richmond 
District to densities quite similar to those found on the 
existing Zoning Map, many residents testified in opposition 
to the 'downzoning' they believed was taking place. There 
were also a considerable number of residents who wrote in 
favor of the Proposed Zoning in the Richmond. 

"Similarly, in the Potrero Hill area, there appeared 
to be an equal number of residents either requesting RH-2 
for the areas the Department had recommended to be RH-3 
and RM-1, or requesting RH-3 for areas proposed to be RH-2. 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -9- JUNE 27, 19 78 

"Subsequent to each hearing, the Commissioners and the 
staff scheduled field trips, open to the public, to survey 
and in this reevaluation , the same basic criteria, those 
listed in the report on residential zoning distributed to all 
property owners last December, were used. 

"Based on the field analysis and further study, we are 
recommending the Map changes colored in orange, shown on 
the exhibits on the wall. 

"As can be seen, the major changes are in the following 
areas : 

"1. Telegraph Hill - shown on Sheet 1 - all RM-2 

Districts on the hill ''re recommended for either 
RM-1 or RH-3 zoning, depending on prevailing density. 

"2. Russian Hill - shown on Sheet 2 - changes recommended 
on Northpoint Street, north side along Hyde Street, 
from C-2 to RC-1, many lots from RM-1 to RH-3, 
and from RM-3 to RM-2 - again based on prevailing 
land use. 

"3. The Richmond - shown on Sheet 3 - all lots previously 
zoned RM-1 or RM-2 along south »ide of Lake between 
3rd and 9th Avenues. In addition, the Department 
wants to recommend that on the south side of Lake 
Street, all RM-1 lots be changed to RH-2 , based on 
information received after the report was prepared. 
This is shown as Letter A , colored in green, on Sheet 
3 of the exhibits. 

"4. Haight-Ashbury - shown on Sheet 6 - all lots proposed 
for RM-1 along Waller Street between Stanyan Street 
and Masonic Avenue be changed to RH-3 and all lots 
proposed for RC-2 along Stanyan Street at Beulah 
Street to RC-1. 

"5. Twin Peaks - shown on Sheet 6 - the recommendations 

include changing the RH-1 district along Corbett Street 
to RH-2, the RM-1 district on Villa Terrace to RH-2, 
and the RM-1 district on Corbett Street and Grey- 
stone Terrace to RH-2 

"6. Eureka Valley - shown on Sheet 7 - the recommendations 
include changing RM-2 to RH-3 on the north side of 
17th Street between Castro Street and Diamond Street, 
RM-1 to RH-2 along Corwin Street, and RM-1 to RH-2 
on Grandview Street at 21st Street. 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -10- JUNE 27, 1978 

"Other specific changes by block and lot are listed 
in the additional staff memorandum of June 27, 1978. In 
summary, the staff recommends these changes with the intent 
that they represent the original purpose of the Residential 
Zoning Study to map new residential zoning districts in a 
manner that would preserve the unique residential neigh- 
borhoods of the City, while at the same time allowing for 
reasonable new construction and renovation to meet the 
housing needs of the City." 

Mr. Winogrond explained to the Commission that the draft resolu- 
tion related to the staff's recommendations contained in Appendix A 
"Recommended Changes to Proposed Ordinance Text from New Residential 
Zoning of the Department of City Planning Report to the Commission 
dated May 18, 1978," and Appendix B, " v inor Text Changes Recommended 
by Department Staff, of the Department's Report to the Commission 
dated June 27, 1978". The draft resolution, he explained, made no 
reference to the four changes initiated by the Commission and included 
in Appendix B of the May 18, 1978, report. 

Following Mr. Winogrond's remarks, the Commission considered 
six amendments to the draft resolution, including the four Com- 
mission initiated recommended changes included in Appendix B of the 
report dated May 18, 1978. 

Mr. Passmore discussed the proposal to allow, in designated land- 
marks and historic districts, those uses permitted in C-l and C-2 
districts. This would make the retention of landmarks possible, he 
said. Mr. Passmore noted that the Implementation Committee thought 
that possibly what should be permitted were the neighborhood-serving 
uses of the RC-1 districts; this was the position of the staff also. 
In both instances, he said, conditional use authorization would be 
required and the Commission would have the benefit of a public hear- 
ing in determining the appropriateness of a proposed use for a 
specific site. 

Commissioner Bierman said that she believed that the conditional 
use procedure offered enough protection even if C-2 uses were included 

Commissioner Bierman moved for approval of the proposed text 
change No. IV, recommending inclusion of the C-l and C-2 uses as 
opposed to the RC-1. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Starbuct 

President Rosenblatt thought that the basic idea was a mistake. 
It would create economic pressure for landmark designations in resi- 
dential districts, he said. He argued that at least the proposal 
should be restricted to landmark sites and that historic districts 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -11- JUNE 27, 19 78 

should be excluded. Commissioner Bierman agreed to an amendment of 
her motion, to exclude references to historic districts. 

The motion, as amended, passed by a vote of 4-2 (Voting Yes: 
Commissioners Bierman, Nakashima, Starbuck and Wentz ; Voting No: 
Commissioners Miller and Rosenblatt.) 

Next, Commissioner Bierman discussed a proposal to expand the 
threshold square footage for Conditional Use Authorization for addi- 
tional dwelling units in the RH districts as set forth on page 159 
of the May 18, 1978, staff report as Change No. 1. 

President Rosenblatt said that the rationale was a concern re- 
lated to large existing residential buildings. If the potential 
number of units to which a single family building can be converted 
is reduced, the economic tendency would be for the building to remain 
a single-family dwelling. 

Mr. Passmore said that the ,taff had not recommended this change 
because the present standards had proven adequate since 1960. There 
was no further discussion of this item. 

Commissioner Starbuck moved for approval of the proposal. The 
motion died for lack of a second. 

Next, Commissioner Bierman discussed Change No. II as set forth 
on page 159 of the May 18, 1978, Report - a proposal to allow certain 
institutions by conditional use in the one-family RH-l(D) and RH-l(S) 
and RH-1 districts. She said that the Conditional Use process pro- 
vided the needed protection. Further, she said that the burden of 
institutions should be borne by all residential areas, and not just 
the two-family and multiple-unit areas. 

Mr. Passmore said that the Department's hesitancy was because 

the Code had not permitted this in the past. He said that It M 

staff received an application, it would probably find it inapprop 

ate nevertheless. districts were 

Commissioner Bierman said that the ■«££ he oppor tunity for 
satuarated with institutions and that in fairn 
dispersion ought to be there 



SUMMARY AND MINTUES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -12- JUNE 27, 1978 

Mr. Winogrond next described the Commission proposal to allow as 
Conditional Uses, philanthropic institutions in residential districts. 
Commissioner Bierman noted that the proposal, Change No. Ill on page 
159 of the May 18 Report, was meant to include RH-l(D), RH-l(S) and 
RH-1 districts, as well as the other residential districts listed. 

Commissioner Wentz said that philanthropic institutions could 
probably find suitable office space in appropriate commercial districts 
and that he agreed with the staff that this measure was not necessary. 

Responding to Commissioner Wentz, Commissioner Bierman said that 
commercial space was extremely expensive and that she made the pro- 
posal only because the Conditional Use controls existed. 

Commissioner Wentz said that nevertheless, the argument ran 
counter to protecting residential neighborhoods. 

President Rosenblatt said that he concurred with Commissioner 
Wentz. He said that in terms of an allocation of Commission and 
staff time, philanthropic office uses did not seem to be such a 
pressing social need. 

Commissioner Starbuck moved for approval of the proposal. It 
was seconded by Commissioner Bierman. The motion failed on a 2-4 
vote (Voting Yes: Commissioners Bierman and Starbuck; Voting No: 
Commissioners Miller, Nakashima, Rosenblatt and Wentz.) 

Commissioner Starbuck moved that the major fraction provision, 
which was set forth in Change No. 2 on page 144 in the May 18 Report, 
be deleted from the final amendments to the text proposal. Mr. 
Winogrond described the reasons for the measure and said that it 
could have a significant impact in areas like the Richmond district, 
where lots of 3,000 square feet which are zoned RM- 1 , would be allowed 
4 units if the changes were adopted, but only 3 units if not. He 
also noted that the existing Code contained a similar major fraction 
provision . 

Commissioner Bierman asked if the Board of Supervisors could 
amend any of the Commissioners' recommendations. 

Mr. Passmore said ye*:, that items considered by the Commission 
and later amended by the Board, would not have to come back to the 
Commission. However, the Board amendments not considered by the 
Commission would be sent to the Commission for hearing and consider- 
ation . 

Commissioner Bierman seconded Commissioner Starbuck's motion 
for deletion and it passed unanimously. 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -13- JUNE 27, 1978 

Commissioner Starbuck asked for clarification of the special 
status of Redevelopment Project Areas under the proposed controls. 
Mr. Passmore responded that this exemption adopted by the Commission 
on May 18, 1978, would become inoperative once the Board enacted the 
new text and maps and that it was a technical refinement requested by 
the Agency. There was no further discussion of this item. 

Commissioner Bierman moved for adoption of the draft resolution 
presented by the staff for the Proposed Ordinance Text, as modified. 
Commissioner Starbuck seconded the motion. 

Commissioner Miller expressed concern related to the staff recom- 
mended Change No. 2 set forth on page 22 of the staff Report dated 
June 27, 1978, allowing higher density development in C-3 districts. 
He said he felt this would create problems later if adopted, because 
the 125 square-foot limit was too lenient and that a 200 square-foot 
standard in C-3 districts was more appropriate. Mr. Winogrond des- 
cribed the measures and Mr. Passmore responed to President Rosenblatt's 
question about the maximum density permitted for housing for the 
elderly. 

After further discussion, the motion to adopt the text as amended 
passed unanimously, as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 7996. 

The Commission recessed at 6:40 p.m. and reconvened at 7:00 p.m. 

ZM76.12 - CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF PROPOSED CITY-WIDE 
REVISIONS TO THE ZONING MAP IN ORDER TO APPLY 
NEW PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 
FOR THE CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT AND USE IN THE 
RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF SAN FRANCISCO BASED UPON 
THE CITY PLANNING CODE TEXT BEING CONSIDERED 
UNDER ZT78.3 ABOVE. 

Mr. Winogrond summarized the draft resolution related to revision 
of the Zoning Map. He explained the order of actions and said that it 
had been necessary to amend the City Planning Code first to create new 
permanent residential zoning districts, before any revisions to the 
zoning Map could be adopted. 

In addition to the recommended map changes included in the Report 
dated June 27, 1978, Mr. Winogrond said that the staff recommend two 
additional map changes that were not included in the Report but were 
on the map. The south side of Lake Street between 14th and 19th Ave- 
nues had been recommended for RM-1, he said. The staff, he added, 
recommends RH-2 which is the best match for the existing land use. 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -14- JUNE 27, 1978 

Further, Mr. Wingrond said that three lots, 7A, 8 and 8A in 
Assessor's Block No. 522 had been recommendad for RM-3. The staff 
is now recommending, he said RH-3. These three parcels were developed 
with buildings similar to those across the street in a previously 
proposed RH-3 district, he said. 

After further discussion, Commissioner Nakashima moved for 
adoption of the draft resolution as amended. It was seconded by 
Commissioner Bierman. 

Commissioner Wentz asked how or where would a citizen have ac- 
cess to those revised maps and proposed text. 

Mr. Winogrond responded that the maps would be prepared immed- 
iately and would be available at the Department's Zoning information 
counter at 100 Larkin Street at nine o'clock in the morning of June 
28. The maps will remain in effect through the period during which 
the Board of Supervisors holds Its hearings, he said. 

A gentleman from the Richmond district stood and thanked the 
Commission for its decision related to Lake Street. 

In his remarks, the Director commended the Residential Zoning 
Staff for a very diligent and responsible piece of work. The staff 
is due, he said, much respect and commendation. 

The Director said that this was a small city. Opportunities are 
limited, he said, and density will return as an issue, he added. As 
a function of proper design, it is limited by need for privacy and a 
need for movement in space. 

In summary, the Director said he supported the adoption of the 
Maps and Ordinance before the Commission. 

Commissioner Bierman said that the Commission thanked the staff. 
Without its guidance, she said, she would have been mired. She said 
that she did support the action and that it left room for building. 

President Rosenblatt added his commendation to the staff, espec- 
ially those present at the meeting. He said it was a tribute to 
their dedication and professionalism. He said that the entire ex- 
perience clearly pointed to the need for city-wide planning. 

Commissioner Wentz also commended the staff and said that the 
staff were able to generate considerable interest in a subject diffi- 
cult to make interesting. 



SUMMARY & MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -15- JUNE 27, 1978 

Responding to Commissioner Wentz, President Rosenblatt predicted 
that the recommendation was assured passage by the Board of Super- 
visors, if the community generated the same level of interest and 
commitment expressed before the Commission. 

Commissioner Starbuck speaking on behalf of Commissioner Bierman 
and on his own behalf, said the staff "did good". Commissioner 
Nakashima agreed. 

The motion for adoption of draft resolution on the proposed maps 
as modified, passed unanimously as City Planning Commission Resolution 
No. 799 7. 

The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. 



Lee Woods 
Secretary 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 

Minutes of the Regular Meeting held on Thursday, July 20, 1978. 

The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, July 20, 
1978, at 12:00 noon, in Room 282, City Hall. 

PRESENT: Ina F. Dearman, Vice-President; Susan J. Bierman, Thomas Miller, 
Yoshio Nakashima, Charles Starbuck and Peter Straus, members of 
the City Planning Commission. 

ABSENT: Toby Rosenblatt, President, City Planning Commission. 

The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by R. Spencer 
Steele, Acting Director of Planning; Charles Gill, City Planning Coordinator; Alec 
Bash, City Planning Coordinator; Marie Zeller, Planner III; Mary Anne Miller, 
Planner II; Michelle Anderson, Staff Aide; and Mohini Mirchandani, Acting 
Secretary. 

Gerald Adams represented the San Francisco Chronicle and Dan Borsuk represented 
the San Francisco Progress. 

CURRENT MATTERS 

CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING TO 
CONTRACT WITH CARL ANTHONY, PROFESSOR OF ARCHH ".3TURE AT BERKEVY, TO 
PROVIDE STORE FACADE DESIGN AND MERCHANDISING CONSULTATION ON THIRD 
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 

R. Spencer Steele, Acting Director of Planning, recommended adoption of a 
draft resolution which contained the following last three clauses: 

"WHEREAS, Carl Anthony, Professor of Architecture at the University 
of California Berkeley, is a renowned expert in neighborhood commercial 
architectural improvements and uniquely suited for this project because 
of his work on cultural -ethnic aspects in this field; and 

"WHEREAS, The Department of City Planning will pay $30 per hour 
for his services on a work order basis; 

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the San Francisco City Planning 
Commission does hereby authorize the Director to contract with Carl 
Anthony in an amount not to exceed $600 under the EDA 302 Planning 
Grant to provide consultant services in connection with the Third 
Street Commercial Improvement Program. 

Commissioner Dearman moved, Commissioner Starbuck seconded and it was carried 
unanimously that the draft resolution be adopted as City Planning Commission 
Resolution No. 8018. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETIjfTC -2- JULY 20, 1978 

REPORT ON NEW SAVINGS AND LOAN AND BRANCH BANK LOCATION APPLICATIONS 
AND OTHER SPECIAL CASES. 

R. Spencer Steele, Acting Director, reported on new Savings and Loan and 
Branch Bank location applications and other cases. These included Gibraltar 
Savings and Loan, World Savings and Loan, Golden Coin Savings and Loan, Oil Can 
Harry's, Church's Chicken, Fast Food Restaurant, Coffee Shop and Restaurant. The 
Commission was asked if any of these cases had a potential for Discretionary Re- 
view. 

The Commission expressed the opinion that consideration of Discretionary Re- 
view would be taken up as and when these cases were calendared. 

Mr. Steele reported that Mr. Passmore and Mr. Winogrond of the Department of 
City Planning had presented the Residential Zoning Study to the Planning, Housing 
and Development Committee of the Board of Supervisors the previous T.u"e'sday at 
which time general testimony was given-? He further informed the Com- 
mission that four public' hearings we're scheduled to take place soon 
between the hours of 6 and 10 .p .m'. in- the main chamber of the Board 
of Supervisors. 

Mr. Steele reported that the Presidio of San Francisco had developed a Five- 
Year Woodland Management Plan which had been reviewed by Marie Zeller, Planner III, 
and asked her to give the Commission an analysis of the situation. 

Marie Zeller, outlining the Plan, said that it would involve removal of sup- 
pressed and dying trees in thickly wooded areas to ensure that larger trees would 
grow in a healthy fashion. The trees leaning over, she said, would be cut down in 
order to prevent them from being a hazard during the period of high winds. She 
further said that many young trees and shrubs would be planted to fill the gaps 
in the woods or to replace dead or diseased trees. 

Referring to the rare plant Clarkia Francisca which exists only in the Pre- 
sidio, she said that the thinning operation, envisaged in the Plan, would not af- 
fect this plant. She said it was interesting to note that approximately 507o of 
the rare and endangered plant species listed in the San Francisco area, occurred 
in the Presidio vicinity. 

Mr. Steele reported that the Department had received a new building permit 
application in connection with a property at 145 Carmel which was considered for 
Discretionary Review by the Commission under Building Permit Application No. 
7705621, last year. The Commission, he said, had then disapproved the two-unit 
dwelling but had approved a single-family dwelling subject to conditions as set 
forth under Resolution No. 7763. The new building permit application was for 
single -family dwelling. 

Members of the Commission were unanimous in their opinion that the matter be 
put on the calendar for consideration of Discretionary Review. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -3- JULY 20, 1978 

Mr. Steele proposed that in view of the fact that there were five Thursdays 
in August, the Commission Meeting on August 17 be hot s.cheduled. It w.as; 
moved by Commissioner Bierman, seconded by Commissioner Nakashima and carried un- 
animously that there be no Commission meeting on August 17. 

Commissioner Starbuck said that he had received a request from Sue Hestor of 
the Wast Bay Health System Agency (HSA), to speak about the conditional use appli- 
cation of Children's Hospital and waa invited to address the Commission. 

Ms. Hestor said that she wanted clarification of the time allowed the agency 
to review the conditional use application of the Children's Hospital. She said 
that according to the City Planning Code, the time limit for submission of review 
was 75 days from their receipt of the conditional use application. However, she 
said, she understood that the draft EIR would not be ready until October /November 
and that in the absence of data, they would not be in a position to evaluate the 
situation. In this connection she also mentioned the Marshall Hale Memorial Hospi- 
tal's proposal to enlarge the hospital's facilities. 

It was the consensus of the Commissioners' opinion that an EIR be submitted in 
draft form before the Commission takes any testimony. 

Andrew Sun of the HSA, said that there was no clear understanding whether the 
Planning Commission would take action at the end of the 75 days or subsequent to 
receipt of the EIR. 

Commissioner Starbuck suggested that a formal letter be written by HSA, asking 
for clarification of the ordinance in this respect. 

EEF77.379A - PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY NEGATIVE DECLARATION 
FOR ACCESS RAMP AT M. H. DE YOUNG MEMORIAL MUSEUM, GOLDEN 
GATE PARK, ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 1700, AN ELEVATED DOUBLE RAMP 
14% FEET IN WIDTH. 

Mr. Steele asked Mr. Alec Bash, City Planning Coordinator, to make the pre- 
sentation. 

Mr. Bash referred to the letter of Appeal received from Mr. Edward Bielski of 
Friends of the Golden Gate Park which he said was transmitted to the Commission 
together with the environmental evaluation form and the negative declaration. 

He indicated that the Department had initially been advised of the project by 
Mr. Raymond Clary, and had then requested plans to determine whether environmental 
review would be required. He stated that the Department had concluded that there 
should be an environmental evaluation rather than a categorical exemption for the 
project, due to the public interest anticipated. 



He then explained by means of drawings, the important features of the pro- 
posed access ramp to the de Young Museum, in the Music Concourse area of the Golden 
Gate Park. 

The ramp, he said, would provide access to both the handicapped as well as non- 
handicapped, by providing a raised entry-way. The existing paved area, he said, 
would be reduced, but that would be replaced with a new elevated paved area. The 
width of 14% feet was, he said, in keeping with the building scale and would allow 
entry of emergency vehicles. Other vehicular access in general, would be pro- 
hibited. 

As such, the project, he said, could not have any adverse effect on traffic. 

Mr. Bash said some landscaping would be removed and replaced and that it would 
not adversely affect the quality of the environment. He said that he had discussed 
with Calvin Malone, Planner IV, of the Department of City Planning, who was pro- 
viding staff assistance for the Park Master Plan and understood that the design of 
the ramp would not conflict with anticipated objectives and policies which were 
being developed for the Golden gate Park Master Plan. 

Mr. Bash said that the State Historic Preservation Officer had evaluated the 
access ramp as being in sympathy with the scale, design and texture of the museum 
and that the Recreation and Parks Commission had also approved the project. 

Mr. Bash mentioned that the Design Committee of the Landmarks Preservation 
Advisory Board had reviewed the design of the access ramp and had given their com- 
ments to which the architect of the sponsor had responded. The Design Committee's 
comments were summarized by him as follows: 

Commeiit I. The ornamental balustrade should be on both the front and back of the 
ramo or a hedge should be along the back. 
Response A second balustrade is not considered necessary physically or aestheti- 
cally, but a hedge will be considered. 
Comment 2. The banister curve should continue unbroken, rather than momentarily 
dipoing at the intermediate landing on the ramo. 
Resoonse The leveling of the banister at the landing is considered correct, and 
includes a bronze handrail on the inside which should be a constant 
distance above the ramp. It will also be hidden by landscaping. 
However, this matter will be reviewed in detail. 
Comment 3. No vehicular access other than emergency vehicles should be allowed 
Resoonse Existing bollards which restrict vehicular traffic would be retained, 
and Museum would continue its present policy restricting such access. 
Comment 4 Existing asphalt in front of ramp should be reolaced with ornamental 
paving. 
Resoonse Agreement with this point, and Museum would be advised of recommenda- 
tion. Ultimately, front paving should relate to entire concourse area 

Mr. Bash said that these comments did not appear to raise significant environ- 
mental issues. 

Mr. Bash added that the access ramp did not change the capability for vehicu- 
lar access to the de Young Museum door, as the existing entry way could accommodate 
Vehicles, and on occasion did. He said that the Museum had assured him that there 
would be no- change in vehicular access policies. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -5- July 20, 1978 

Mr. Bash also referred to letters received by the Department from 
Raymond H. Clary and Jean Lippay who were of the opinion that the pro- 
ject would have adverse effect with regard to the Pool of Enchantment, 
encroachment in the Park, air quality and noise levels. However, Mr. 
Bash said, the staff did not perceive that to be the case. 

He then summarized the providion of Section 31.24(f) of the Ad- 
ministrative Code concerning Planning Commission's public hearings and 
determinations on appeals of preliminary negative declaration. 

Mr. Bash then stated that the Director's recommendation was that 
the Commission affirm the preliminary nagative declaration, as the pro- 
posed ramp would not change present vehicular access capabilities. 

Mr. Edward Bielski of the Friends of Golden Gate Park, said that 
they believed that the project would have significant effect on the 
environment and jfhat the Negative Declaration had not been prepared 
according to the guidelines provided by the California Environmental 
Quality Act. 

He stated that the Act provides that a project would be considered 
to have significant environmental impact, if it had potential environ- 
mental effects which were individually limited but cumulatively consid- 
erable. That is, he said, when incremental effects of individual pro- 
jects were considerable, when viewed in conjunction with the effects of 
past projects, the effects of other current projects and possible future 
projects. When individual projects are a phased project of the under- 
taking and when the total undertaking comprises of a project of signifi- 
cant environmental impact, then a single EIR must be prepared on the 
project. "We believe", he said, "The City Planning Department has acted 
improperly and failed to review the total project and prepare an appro- 
priate EIR as required by CEQA, because we do believe this project is 
part of a larger project." He said that the City's initial Negative 
Declaration was inadequate, that this was a part of a larger project and 
should be considered in that light, and that it was not the issue of 
building a ramp which was before the Commission. He said that Mr. Bash 
had told him that the ramp was part of preparation for the King Tut 
Exhibit. Referring to the first page of the Environmental Evaluation 
F o'rm, under No. II, site size, he questioned how anyone could evaluate 
the impact of the project when no pertinent information was provided. 
He referred to the point about amount of off-street parking provided and 
said that it was a large project, and too many people were going to be 
accommodated and asked how the parking problem would be solved. About 
associated projects, he said, that air-conditioning was being provide 
and that this was not even discussed. About anticipated incremental 
development, he asked how many new large exhibitions were anticipated 
and what additional pro ects were contamplated . Referring to point 
eleven of Part II, he said, no information was available as to how many 
people were going to be employed at the exhibition and what kind of 
additional accommodation was being provided for them. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -6- JULY 20, 1978 

Mr. Edward Bielski also said that the statement "not applicable" on items 
under Part IIB(3) and (13) of the Environmental Evaluation form "Change in pattern 
or scale or character of general area of project" and"Relationship to a larger pro- 
ject or series of projects^ wa.s incorrectly given. 

Mr. Bielski said that contrary to the statement made in the Environmental 
Evaluation completed by City Planning, they believed that the project had a sub- 
stantial and demonstratable negative aesthetic effect and that they believed that 
the ramp would be used eventually for vehicular traffic on certain occasions. 

In view of the above, Mr. Bielski said, the negative declaration issued by 
the City was inadequate and not in line with CEQA guidelines. 

Mr. Bash stated that Calvin Mai one of the Department of City Planning had been 
in close touch with the museum authorities concerning tine access ramp proposal for 
the past 3-4 years, and that this was well before there was any knowledge of the 
King Tut Exhibit, and consequently, the ramp was not part of the exhibit. He 
stated that the connection between the two was that the Museum wanted the ramp 
completed before the exhibit opened, in order not to have construction under way 
at that time. 

Commissioner Bierman asked if there were alternatives to environmental review. 

Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Bielski how this particular ramp differed from 
other handicapped ramps. Mr. Bielski said that this one was 14% feet wide while 
others were not so wide. 

adversr mi ^ i T r i M , iller aSked *"* £XaCtly did the effect of the P r0 J ec t become 
or teLfirf i £ answered that it was not the question of it having adverse 
iLlT, effects but that the question was that it needed an environmental 

impact report. Commissioner Miller asked him further about which factor was of 

mental reno r r Pa r^ nd *Z' MelSki repUed that iC re < uired a statistical ^nviron- 
dou L3 «* ^ Pr0J6Ct Sh ° Uld bS conside ^d in the context of tremen- 
dous amount of people coming to view the King Tut Exhibit. 

Commissioner Bierman asked if a case could be made that the use of the road- 
way would change vehicular pattern. 

Commissioner Straus asked Mr. Bash which of the public bodies had considered 
the design and whether the project had significant impacts. 

Mr. Bash replied that it was reviewed by Parks and Recreation Commission, Art 
Commission and possibly other bodies, too. Mr. Steele said that the San Francisco 
Fire Department and Art Commission had all approved the project and there was no 
conflict over design. He said that the design of the ramp was fitting to a mon- 
umental building and that it reinforced the building, was ornamental and provided 
a useful function. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -7- JULY 20, 1978 

Mr. Steven Dykes, Deputy Director for Administration of the Fine Arts Museum, 
confirmed the approvals that had already been obtained for the project. He stated 
that the only connection of the access ramp with the King Tut Exhibit was the de- 
sire that construction of the ramp not interfere with access to the exhibit. 

Mr. Raymond Clary cited a 1921 report of the Museum as evidence of there being 
nothing in the Museum policy to limit future expansion, and that anything that bene- 
fited the Museum was considered good by the Museum. He stated that incremental ex- 
pansion of buildings in the park was similar to cutting off the tail of the dog one 
inch at a time so it wouldn't hurt so much. 

Jeanne Uppay, of the Friends of Golden Gate Park, said that the initial evalu- 
ation was inadequate and made the following statement: 

"In appealing the Planning Department's initial evaluation of this 
project, I want to stress that our intent is not to delay a proposed pro- 
ject unecessarily, but rather to insure that those designing and initi- 
ating such projects fulfill their preliminary obligations to the public 
by conforming to City codes and State environmental law. To that end, I 
want to raise the following points: 

"I. The Environmental Evaluation form dated 6-20-78 contains in- 
adequate and incomplete information. We believe that the fol- 
lowing items under II. B. were incorrectly stated to be non- 
applicable when, in truth, they are applicable and therefore 
should have been addressed: 

'3. Change in pattern, scale or character 

of general area of project. ' 
'13. Relationship to a larger project or series 

of projects. ' 

"Under III. A. the architectural style of the deYoung Museum is 
incorrectly described as 'classical'. 

"To question No. 6. on page 4-- 'Does the project have a substantial 
and demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? '--the answer given is 
No but the comments indicate a Yes to be truthful. The State 
Historic Preservation Officer, for example, indicated that the 
ramp ' appears to be in sympathy with the design of the existing 
structure 1 ; the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board' raised 
some concerns, which have not yet been resolved . ' 

"It is noted under item 18. on page 6 that the Residence Element 
of the Master Plan 'states that projects (for additions to 
existing cultural facilities) should not be approved which are 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -8- JULY 20, 1978 

not demonstrated to be necessary. ' Nowhere in any document filed 
on this project has the access ramp been demonstrated to be 
necessary. Nowhere have we seen any statistical evidence to 
support the need for a ramp (most certainly not one \l\\ feet 
wide), such as the percentage of probable museum visitors who 
are handicapped to the extent of being unable to negotiate 
eight steps. No satisfactory reason has yet been given for the 
extraordinary width of this ramp. As has been noted, the 
ramp proposed for the Palace of the Legion of Honor, also for 
access to the handicapped, is only 8 feet wide. 

"Further, in direct contradiction of the foregoing precept, the Planning 
Department staff has stated in a letter to me dated 6-29-78 that 'adequate, 
rationale for the project is the prerogative of the decision-makers, ' not of 
the Planning Department. 

"That same communication states that while the project architect has 
assured the Planning Department that replacement landscaping will be planted 
upon completion of the project, the Department 'is not in a position to 
monitor this action. ' 

"2. One of the expert's opinions referred to in this same communication 
is that of the State Historic Preservation Officer. My subsequent 
conversation with this officer indicated that the State Board 
had originally challenged the project on the basis of its in- 
ordinate width and reduced access to the reflecting pool. The 
project architect and the Director of the Fine Arts Museums of 
San Francisco then requested a second meeting with the officer, 
during the course of which they persuaded him that a) the ramp 
was necessary, and b) the Museum would replace the plantings and 
adhere to a policy of prohibiting vehicular access to the ramp. 
My response to this information was that no local agency of 
government was empowered to either monitor or enforce compliance 
with those conditions, a fact of which the State officer was not 
aware. 

"3. The effect of the ramp and the ornamental balustrade appears 
totally inappropriate in design and proportion to the stark 
'Spanish renaissance 1 style of the Museum building. It would 
be much more compatible in scale with the Palace of Versailles. 
Not only does the semi-circular ramp prevent walkers from cir- 
cling the reflecting pool at ground level, but the platform at 
the confluence of the left and right ramps extends some 18 to 
20 feet out from the entranceway almost to the edge of the pool. 
It may be a perfect stage for some prima donna to make an appear- 
ance, but it is totally out of harmony with the simplicity of the 
pool and the amount of space necessary for its enjoyment. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -9- JULY 20, 1978 



"4. What we have surmised for some time, and what the Museum project 
planners have only recently admitted, is that the access ramp is 
but one of a series of projects in anticipation of the King Tut 
exhibit in 1979. That exhibit, which the Museums Director has 
said is expected to pull two million visitors, will indeed have 
a devastating impact upon the surround area of Golden Gate Park. 

"For that reason, we are requesting this Commission to find that 
an Environmental Impact Report will be required in order to ad- 
dress the impacts of this exhibit and the unprecedented crowds it 
is designed to attract upon air quality and vehicular congestion 
in the Music Concourse area; upon the need for expanded parking 
facilities; and upon the present minimal comfort facilities in 
the immediate area. 

"This means that all projects now in the planning stages for this 
exhibit will need to be brought into the open for review by the 
Recreation & Park Commission, the Planning Commission, and the 
Board of Supervisors — as indeed they should have been at the 
outset of the approval process. 

"Another partial truth contained in the present Environmental 
Evaluation is the statement: "No serious public controversy 
exists at this time.' There needs to be a qualifying amendment: 
because, as usual, the public has been kept uninformed of the 
Museum's plans and how they relate to the total health of Golden 
Gate Park. Were these plans, including the ramp project, as fully 
publicized as was the contract for acquiring the exhibit, we 
might well find some serious public controversey. 

"While the Museum and the Recreation & Park Department are spending 
upwards of $600,000 for an air conditioning system to protect the 
King Tut artifacts, the patrons of the eastern portion of Golden 
Gate Park will be exposed to massive vehicular and pedestrian con- 
gestion, air polluted by dust and carbon monoxide, and overburdened 
comfort facilities. The public be damned is once again the pre- 
vailing attitude. 

"If the museums, such as the deYoung, which have the good fortune 
to be located in Golden Gate Park, cannot be educated to accept 
the limitations prescribed by their choice environment, as a gueet 
accepts certain restrictions in someone's home, then they should 
in good conscience consider relocating outside the Park. If they 
continue to believe that such hyped-up, media-promoted exhibits 
as the King Tut, which require special architectural accommodation, 
are necessary to build their prestige and assuage wealthy contrib- 
utors for any donative pains; then indeed these institutions should 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -10- JULY 20, 1978 

be asked — first politely and then with vigor — to hold such mass 
entertainments in the Civic Auditorium, Brooks Hall, or some 
other suitable place. 

"The responsibility for guarding the quality and character of 
Golden Gate Park lies with the Recreation & Park Commission and 
staff and with the Planning Commission and staff. Their responsi- 
bility does not lie in accommodating museum construction projects 
necessitiated by over-publicized events." 

Mr. Adolph Rosekrans, architect of the project, said that the possibility of 
a smaller ramp was studied 3/4 years ago. Later a city architect was engaged for 
initial design and after further consideration, it was decided to have a larger 
ramp for use of both the handicapped and non-handicapped, which would also accom- 
modate emergency vehicles. 

Commissioner Starbuck asked what would be the height of the pavement of the 
ramp. Alec Bash replied that it would be 3^ feet. 

Commissioner Straus asked whether it was fundamentally necessary to have a 
balustrade. 

Commissioner Bierman sakd that she felt that the City had looked at the pro- 
ject as a separate one by itself, without considering other buildings in the Park. 
Mr. Bash replied that primarily they were reviewing only that particular building, 
but had considered the overall context as well. 

Mr. Kevin Bond of the Recreation Center for the Handicapped, stated that he 
believed the design to be most suitable, as it provided equal access to the handi- 
capped and non-handicapped. 

Mr. David Finn stated that if there was only just this one enormous ramp, in 
real emergencies, all the handicapped people - not just those in wheelchairs - 
would have difficulty in getting out safely. He said the money should be spent for 
many small ramps, not one big one. 

Ms. Lucy Muir of the Recreation Center for the Handicapped, spoke in favor of 
the project from her wheelchair, and said that the ramp would serve senior citizens 
and pregnant women, along with the handicapped. She said that there should be more 
concern for human beings rather than for the form of the ramp. She said that when 
ever she goes to the museum, it takes her at least half an hour to get from the car 
to the museum. 

Ms. Jean Whitier, another lady in a wheelchair, representing the Center for 
Independent Living, also spoke in favor of the Project. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -11- JULY 20, 1978 

Commissioner Bierman said that the Commission had no say about what or what 
should not be the design. The question, she said, was whether or not an environ- 
mental impact report was needed. She said she had a feeling that if it were a 
regular ramp, there would not have been a delay, but this was an elevated ramp, 
3% feet high, and that made the issue complicated. 

Thomas K. Seligman, Deputy Director for Education and Exhibition at the Museum, 
spoke about access and parking at the entrance being under police authority, and 
not the sole prerogative of the Museum administration. 

A member of the audience said that a small ramp would ruin the effect of the 
building. He said the balustrade was necessary to hold on to something, in case 
of any possibility of slipping backwards. 

Jim Liner, a member of the audience, in a wheelchair, said he was very pleased 
with the plan and that the fact that there was going to be an exhibition there, 
should not be confused with the issue of having a ramp for the handicapped. 

Mr. Steele, referring to questions raised by the appellant, said that in the 
opinion of the staff, the project did not affect any change in pattern, scale or 
character of its general area. About the projects' relationship to larger pro- 
jects, Mr. Steele said that it improved the physical make-up of the Park. He 
further said that the project did not have a substantial and demonstratable negative 
aesthetic effect, and recommended that the Commission affirm the negative declara- 
tion and deny the appeal. 

Replying to the query that nowhere was it shown that the ramp was necessary, 
Mr. Steele said that a monumental building deserved a monumental entrance. 

Commissioner Bierman asked whether that would set it out as being special in 
comparison with other buildings in the Park. 

Mr. Steele said that the environmental evaluation was always taken in com- 
parison with other buildings and that while making their determination, they had 
taken into account the concourse, Academy of Science, Tea Garden and other buildings 
in the vicinity, and looked at the whole thing. 

Mr. Clary said that sometime back when the Chinese Pavilion vas proposed 
along with the Stowe Lake project, there were three different projects, but accord- 
ing to the law, they were considered by Dr. Selina Bendix as one project. He asked 
why, in the light of what he said, the three different projects now — air condi- 
tioning, ramp and exhibition -- were not considered as one project. 

Mr. Steele replied that it was because the former projects were in the same 
area and were related. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -12- JULY 20, 1978 

Commissioner Bierman asked the sponsor if before deciding on the ramp, any 
meetings were held with concerned citizens in this connection. 

Mr. Rosekrans, architect of the project, said that the Park & Recreation Com- 
mission and the Art Commission had their meetings on this matter, with published 
agendas and that they also reviewed the Plan with five different organizations of 
the handicapped. He added that Mr. Roderick had testified at an earlier meeting 
in opposition to the ramp, with similar concerns as the appellants. 

Jeanne Lippay asked what the process was for seeing that the EIR was prepared 
on an exhibition which would have a large impact on the Golden Gate Park. 

Commissioner Starbuck replied that technically there was none and that there 
was no permit act applicable. 

Ms. Lippay advised the Commission that their vote should consider the King Tut 
Exhibition as well as the ramp. 

Commissioner Miller moved that the appeal be denied and the negative declara- 
tion be approved, Commissioner Nakashima seconded the motion. When the question was 
called, the Commission voted 4-1, sustaining the Department's determination that 
the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and affirming the 
preliminary negative declaration. Commissioners Miller, Nakashima, Starbuck and 
Straus voted "Aye"; Commissioner Bierman voted "No". 

Commissioner Bierman explained that the reason why she voted "No" was because 
she felt that the project would have an impact because of its special character- 
istics and that if it were a regular ramp, an EIR may not have been required. 

STAFF REPORT ON SOLAR ENERGY ISSUES IN SAN FRANCISCO - MASTER PLAN AND 

CITY PLANNING CODE IMPLEMENTATION. 

(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1978.) 

R. Spencer Steele, Acting Director recommended to the Commission that the mat- 
ter be postponed to a later date. Commissioner Miller moved, Commissioner Straus 
seconded and the motion carried unanimously that the matter be postponed. 

STAFF PRESENTATION OF THE ISSUES IDENTIFICATION FOR THE LOCAL COASTAL 
PLAN FOR SAN FRANCISCO. 

Marie Zeller, Planner III, in summarizing the Local Coastal Plan, said that 
the Coastal Act of 1976 required each City and County within the State to formulate 
their own local coastal plan within the framework of Coastal Act policies. 

She drew the attention of the Commission to pages 29 and 30 of the Local 
Coastal Plan dealing with Summary of Key Issues which primarily concern those 
issues that need planning and consideration to resolve existing and future problems. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -13- July 20, 1978 




The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted, 



Mohini Mirchandani 
Acting Secretary 



r 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 

^ Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, August 3, 1978. 

The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, 
August 3, 1978, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 282, City Hall. 

PRESENT: Toby Rosenblatt, President; Susan J. Bierman, Ina F. 
Dearman, Thomas Matoff, Joseph Mignola, Yoshio Naka- 
shima, Charles Starbuck, members of the City Planning 
Commission . 

ABSENT: None. 

The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by 
R. Spencer Steele, Acting Director; Robert W. Passmore, Planner V 
(Zoning), and Assistant Zoning Administrator; Leonard Miller, Planner 
II; Mary Anne Miller, Planner II; Alec Bash, City Planning Coordinator; 
Jon Pon, Staff Assistant IV; and Lee Woods, Secretary. 

The press was represented by Gerald Adams of the San Francisco 
Examiner^and Dan Borsuk of the San Francisco Progress. 

CURRENT MATTERS 

With respect to the Commission's Discretionary Review of Building 
Permit Application No. 7805443, it was moved by Commissioner Nakashima, 
seconded by Commissioner Mignola and passed unanimously to amend City 
Planning Commission Resolution No. 8028 to require that a notice be 
attached to the land records to indicate that the proposed structure 
is to be and will remain a single-family dwelling. 

With respect to the Northeastern Waterfront Advisory Committee, 
it was moved by Commissioner Dearman, seconded by Commissioner Naka- 
shima and passed unanimously to appoint Mr. David Chang to the Com- 
mittee . 

Commissioner Starbuck requested that the staff arrange to have a 

representative of the Redevelopment Agency give the Commission a 

status report on the proposed development of Senior Citizens' housing 
at Sacramento and Stockton Streets. 

Commissioner Bierman requested that Plans and Programs staff re- 
port to the Commission on the proposed 4th Street on-ramp to the No. 
280 Freeway and other transportation issues related to that entire 
area . 

The Commission requested that the staff make a status report on 
the Rehabilitation Finance Study. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -2- AUGUST 3, 1978 

S78.2 - 1007 TARAVAL, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 20TH AVENUE; LOT 1 
EE78.95 IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 2405. 

PROPOSAL TO ABOLISH A 15-FOOT SETBACK ALONG 20TH 

AVENUE. 

A case report was available. It was summarized by Mary Anne 
Miller, Planner II. 

Robert W. Passmore, Planner V (Zoning), reminded the City 
Planning Commission that technically, what was before it was the 
abolition of the setback and not the proposed bank expansion. 

Mr. Michael Sullivan represented the applicant, the Continental 
Service Company. He said that the proposal represented an expansion 
of approximately 40% and that the purpose was to better serve the 
bank's long-standing market area. 

President Rosenblatt was told by Mr. Passmore, that if the set- 
back removal was approved, the proposed expansion would come to the 
Commission for Discretionary Review. 

Mr. Fred Stark, the applicant's architect, discussed the expansio 
plans and said that the provision of parking did not generate traffic. 

Mrs. Kuhn, a resident of the block of 20th Avenue immediately 
south of Taraval said that her home would be only 2 doors from the 
entrance to the proposed garage on 20th Avenue. That garage and drive 
way, she protested, would severely impact her block and home value of 
her property would be adversely affected. 

Mrs. McDowell, a resident of the same block on 20th Avenue, said 
that her property was immediately adjacent to the entrance of the pro- 
posed garage. She had lived there for 40 years, she said, and she 
opposed the driveway. 

Commissioner Bierman expressed the belief that this was a classic 
case of the undoing of a commercial block and that the real issue 
might be expansion. 

The Commission agreed that some considereation should be given 
to locating the garage entrance on Taraval Street. 

Commissioner Bierman moved that the setback be considered in the 
context of a Discretionary Review hearing. Further, she moved that 
the matter be continued to September 28th when the plans for the pro- 
posed expansion would be given further consideration. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -3- AUGUST 3, 1978 

Commissioner Starbuck said that he had a big problem with the 
plans, and that, in terms of Commission guidelines he could not ap- 
prove the expansion. He said that residents and merchants had real 
concern about the erosion of small, neighborhood-serving commercial 
uses . 

Commissioner Starbuck seconded the motion of Commissioner Bier- 
man and it was carried unanimously. 

CU78.36 - 2400 GEARY BOULEVARD, NORTHWEST CORNER OF BAKER 
EE78.231 STREET; LOT 8 IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 1081. 

PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A PRIVATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 
FOR 25 CHILDREN IN AN R-4, PROPOSED RH-3 DISTRICT. 

The City Planning Commission agreed to waive the case report. 
The staff recommendation was for approval. The applicant agreed to 
send written notice to all parents, discouraging the pick-up or de- 
livery of children on Geary Boulevard. 

It was moved by Commissioner Dearman, seconded by Commissioner 
Bierman, and carried unanimously that the draft resolution containing 
staff recommendations for approval of the application be adopted as 
City Planning Commission Resolution No. 8029. 

DR78.59(CU) - 2224 SACRAMENTO STREET, NORTH SIDE, 68.75 FEET 
EE78.230 EAST OF BUCHANAN STREET; LOT 6 IN ASSESSOR'S 
BLOCK 627. 

PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT A BOARDING HOUSE WITH 10 
GUEST ROOMS IN AN R-3, PROPOSED RH-2 DISTRICT. 

Mr. Alec Bash summarized the case report. 

Ann Bloomfield of the Pacific Heights Council; William Gilmartin; 
Bernard Tolk; and Victor Reta spoke strongly in favor of the proposal. 

Mr. Richard Burn, President of the Pacific Heights Condominium 
Association, expressed concern about parking in the area. He remind- 
ed the City Planning Commission that the area was proposed RH-2. 

Marian Binkley, the applicant, said that there was a huge extra 
lot with the building and that parking could be developed. 

Mr. Passmore said that the staff recommendation was for approval 
with condi ti ns . 

Commissioner Nakashima moved that the staff recommendation as 
per the draft resolution be approved. It was seconded by Commissionei 
Dearman and carried unanimously as City Planning Commission Resolu- 
tion No. 8030. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -4- AUGUST 3, 1978 

DR78.60(CU) - 2333 VALLEJO STREET, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FILL- 
EE78.226 MORE; LOTS 1 & 24 IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 563. 

PROPOSAL TO ENLARGE A CHURCH IN AN R-2 , PROPOSED 

RH-1 DISTRICT. 

Mr. Alec Bash summarized the case report. 

Mr. James Beard, representing the applicant, said that the pro- 
posal was to relocate an existing use, that no retail sales were 
planned and that access would be interior from an existing building. 
If necessary, he said, the curb-cut could be removed and the garage 
doors replaced with an appropriate stucco facade. 

Mr. Sobel, a resident owner at 2330 Vallejo Street, opposed the 
proposal, saying that it would spoil the frontage on Vallejo Street. 
He said that he had letters from two residents of the immediate area, 
who were also opposed. 

Sara Southwich, a resident of the immediate area, said that it 
would appear commercial, that she opposed it and that she had 17 
signatures of opposing residents. 

Margaret Sugarman, a resident of 2843 Fillmore, called the pro- 
posal an expansion and that it would create a potential for the ero- 
sion of a residential setting. 

Mr. Michael Keating, a resident at 2340 Vallejo, said that park- 
ing was a problem but that the applicant seemed reasonable. 

Anita Tom, a resident of the immediate area, opposed the pro- 
posal . 

Mr. Passmore said that the proposal would not have a signifi- 
cant or adverse impact on the neighborhood and that the staff recom- 
mendation was for approval with conditions. 

Commissioner Dearman moved that the staff recommendation be 
approved. She stressed that her motion included retention of the 
garage doors and removal of the curb-cut. The motion was seconded 
by Commissioner Nakashima and it was carried unanimously that the 
draft resolution be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution 
No. 8031. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -5- AUGUST 3, 1978 

DR78.58(CU) - BROTHERHOOD WAY BETWEEN 777 & 855; LOT 26 IN 

EE78.239 ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 7380. 

PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND 
A CHURCH IN AN R-l-D, RPOPOSED RH-1 DISTRICT. 

The City Planning Commission agreed to waive the case report. 
The staff recommendation was for approval. It was moved by Commis- 
sioner Dearman, seconded by Commissioner Nakashima and carried unan- 
imously that the draft resolution be adopted as City Planning Com- 
mission Resolution No. 8032. 

At this point in the proceedings, Commissioner Starbuck left 
the meeting room. 

ZM78.10 - VACANT BARTD PROPERTY NORTH OF 300 SANTA ROSA 
CU78.38 AVENUE WITH FRONTAGE ALSO ON PILGRIM AVENUE: LOTS 
EE78.249 23, 24 & 26 IN ASSESSOR ' S ■ BLOCK 6793. 

PROPOSAL TO RECLASSIFY PROPERTY FROM A RECOMMENDED 
P DISTRICT TO A RECOMMENDED RH-1 DISTRICT, AN EXIST- 
ING R-l DISTRICT AND A PROPOSAL TO U.SE THE p R0PERTY 
FOR A MARKING LOT FOR A CHURCH AT 1825 SAN JOSE AVE. 

The City Planning Commission agreed to waive the case report. 
Mr. Passmore said that it was not necessary for the Commission to 
act on the zoning matter. The action before the Commission was the 
Conditional Use, he said, and the staff recommendation was for ap- 
proval with conditions . 

Commissioner Dearman moved, Commissioner Bierman seconded and 
it was carried unanimously that the draft resolution containing staff 
recommendations for approval with conditions be adopted as City 
Planning Commission Resolution No. 8033. 

CU78.35 - 4080 MISSION STREET, NORTHWEST SIDE ADJACENT TO 
EE78.242 FREEWAY 280; LOT 60 IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 6748. 

PROPOSAL TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING COMMUNITY CENTER 
BUILDING (MISSION STREET YMCA) BY ADDING A MULTI- 
USE ROOM FOR SENIOR CITIZEN ACTIVITIES AND BY 
IMPROVING THE PLAYGROUND FOR CHILDREN. 

The City Planning Commission agreed to waive the case report. 
The staff recommendation was for approval. 

Commissioner Nakashima moved, seconded by Commissioner Bierman, 
that the staff recommendation be approved. It was carried unanimously 
that the draft resolution be adopted as City Planning Commission 
Resolution No. 8034. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -6- AUGUST 3, 1978 

ZT77.1 - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF THE CITY PLANNING 
CODE, SECTION 221 AND OTHER SECTIONS AS NECESSARY TO 
RESTRICT THE LOCATION OF ADULT BOOK STORES AND EN- 
COUNTER STUDIOS . 

Mr. Passmore said that it was the staff recommendation to con- 
tinue this matter to August 31, 1978. The continuance had been re- 
quested by Supervisor Feinstein's office, he said. 

It was moved by Commissioner Dearman, seconded by Commissioner 
Nakashima and carried unanimously that the matter be continued to 
August 31, 1978. 

At this point in the proceedings, Commissioner Starbuck returned 
to the meeting room and reassumed his seat at the Commission table. 

DR78.54 - DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 
NO. 7804686 FOR 3624 GEARY BOULEVARD FOR A NEW 
WALK-UP WINDOW FACILITY AS PART OF EXISTING BANK 
AND A NEW PARKING LOT. 

Mr. Passmore said that this matter had been continued until the 
applicant could determine what conditions related to the billboard 
lease . 

Mr. Chester Hillicott, representing the advertising company 
which utilized the billboard, said that removal of the billboard was 
illegal and that his company vigorously opposed its removal. 

Mr. Don Nelson, of the Wells Fargo Ban/, property management 
department, said that the bank could live without the billboard. 

Commissioner Starbuck was informed that there would be access 
from both Geary Boulevard and Arguello Street. 

Commissioner Matoff expressed concern a^out vehicular inter- 
ference with the bus line. 

Mr. Passmore said that the staff recommendation was for approval 
with conditions. 

Commissioner Starbuck said that acute vehicular and pedestrian 
conflicts would result from the proposed access on both Geary Boule- 
vard and Arguello Street. These conflicts were inevitable, he said. 

It was moved by Commissioner Bierman, seconded by Commissioner 
Nakashima and carried by a vote of 5-2 that the draft resolution set- 
ting forth staff recommendations for approval with conditions be ad- 
opted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 8035. Commissioners 
Bierman, Mignola, Dearman, Nakashima, Rosenblatt Voted "Aye"; Com- 
missioners Starbuck, Matoff Voted "No". 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -7- AUGUST 3, 1978 

CONSIDERATION OF ENDORSEMENT OF THE POTRERO HILL 
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PLAN. 

Mr. Jon Pon, Staff Assistant IV, said that it was the staff's 
recommendation that the Commission endorse the Plan. 

Mr. Joe Samuels, President of the Potrero Hill Community Develop- 
ment Corporation said that his organization endorsed the Plan. 

Mr. William Popham, chairperson of the Economic Development 
Committee of Potrero Kill said that his committee endorsed the Plan. 
He said that it represented the concerted effort of a great many 
people . 

Ramon Contrares, a resident of Potrero Hill, said that he favore< 
endorsement. He complimented Mr. Jon Pon for his outstanding effort. 

Mr. Robert Bradford, representing the Potrero Hill Boosters and 
Merchants Association, said that he endorsed the Plan. Upgrading the 
600 units of public housing, on the eastern side of the hill was 
their number one priority, he said. 

Ann Zich, technical consultant to the Potrero Hill Community 
Development Corporation, spoke in favor of the study. 

With respect to provisions of the plan related to development 
of the Wisconsin Street Site, President Rosenblatt expressed concern 
about a provision that no existing privately owned building on or 
adjacent to the site should be demolished by public action as part 
of the development. Also, he expressed concern about a provision 
that priority for jobs resulting from housing and related development 
should be given to the Hill's residents. 

President Rosenblatt said that the jobs priority provision would 
have the effect of splintering and dividing the City. 

Martha Dison said that she approved of the jobs priority pro- 
vision . 

Commissioner Bierman said that, in the matter of the Mt . Sutro 
Plan, a small opposition group had used a similar provision as a 
rallying cry of opposition against the Plar.. 

Commissioner Dearman moved, Commissioner Nakashima seconded and 
it carried unanimously that the draft resolution containing the 
staff's recommendation for endorsement of the Plan, be adopted as 
City Planning Commission Resolution No. 8036. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -8- AUGUST 3, 1978 

ZM78.3 - COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY ON BOTH SIDES OF 
EE78.62 SACRAMENTO STREET BETWEEN MAPLE AND LYON STREETS; 

PART OF BLOCKS 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 

1018, 1019, 1020, 1021 AND 1022. 

REQUEST TO RECLASSIFY THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM A 

C-2 DISTRICT TO AN R-3-C DISTRICT. 

President Rosenblatt asked if there was any action from the 
City Planning Commission. 

Commissioner Bierman asked if the RC-1 would be explained to 
the Board of Supervisors. 

Mr. Passmore replied in the affirmative. 

Commissioner Bierman moved, Commissioner Starbuck seconded and 
it was carried by a vote of 6-1 that the draft resolution recommend- 
ing the approval of the reclassification be adopted as City Planninj 
Commission Resolution No. 8037. Commissioners Bierman, Dearman, 
Matoff, Mignola, Rosenblatt, Starbuck voted "Aye"; Commissioner 
Nakashima voted "No". 

The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lee Woods 
Secretary 



PUHUC LIBRARY 

""' SAN FRANCISCO 
££ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 

^ Minutes of the Regular Meeting held on Thursday, August 24, 1978. 

The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, 
August 24, 1978, at 1:00 p.m., In Room 282, City Hall. 

PRESENT: Toby Rosenblatt, President; Ina F. Dearman, Vice-Pres- 
ident; iiusan J. Bierman, Thomas Matoff, Thomas Miller, 
and Charles Starbuck, members of the City Planning 
Commiss ion . 

ABSENT: Yoshio Nakashima, member of the City Planning Commission 

The staff f the Department of City Planning was represented by 
Rai Y. Okamoto, Director of Planning; R. Spencer Steele, Assistant 
Director-Implementation (Zoning Administrator); Robert W. Passmore, 
Planner V (Zoning); Charles Gill, City Planning Coordinator; Mary Anne 
Miller, Planner II; Edward Green, Planner I; Xandra Malandra, Planner 
II; Mary Gainer, City Planning Intern; and Lee Woods, Secretary. 

The press was represented by Gerald Adams of the San Francisco 
Examiner and Dan Borsuk of the San Francisco Progress. 

CURRENT MATTERS 

PRESENTATION OF HIT. TORIC PRESERVATION LC N PROGRAM. 

This was a simple informational presentation. The Commission 
took no action. Mr. Rick Massimo represented the Foundation for San 
Francisco's Architectural Heritage. 

STAFF REPORT ON POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTO RESTRICTIVE 
ZONE IN DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO. 

This was a simple informational presentation. The Commission 
took no action. Edward Green, Planner I, represented the staff. 

With respect t" permits in C-l an' C-2 districts, Commissioner 
Bierman asked that the staff examine the Caravan Lodge proposal at 
601 Eddy Street. President Rosenblatt said that, in a letter to the 
Commission, the Union Street Merchants Association, had expressed 
concern about a retail development proposal at 2145 Union Street. 

Commissioner Starbuck asked the staff to report to the Commission 
on its recent use of Discretionary Review. 

Rai Y. Okamoto, Director of Planning, noted that Kit Hermann, 
Planner II, had resigned. Also, he introduced Mary Gainer, the De- 
partment's only summer intern. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -2- AUGUST 24, 1978 

Commissioner Starbuck said that the "tires" which constitute the 
floating breakwater r»f the Pier 39 project, contained foam. He asked 
that the EIR staff chec.c with BCDC since the EIR made no reference to 
f oam . 

Commissioner Starbuck requested a list of consultant contracts 
awarded by the Department and those co-gponsored by the Department 
since 1976. The list, he said, should include the amount and subject 
of the contract. 

Responding to an inquiry from Commissioner Starbuck, R. Spencer 
Steele, Assistant Director-Implementation (Zoning Administrator), said 
that he would get a City Attorney's opinion on the possible lifetime 
of a variance . 

CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION URGING THE SAN FRANCISCO REEIVELOP- 
MENT AGENCY TO ACCELERATE THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR ELDERLY 
HOUSING AT THE SACRAMENTO AND STOCKTON STREETS SITE. 

Robert Reese represented the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. 
Commissioner Starbuck said that the basic issue was housing. Commis- 
sioner Starbuck urged approval of the resolution, the intent of which, 
he said, was to urge those agencies, with jurisdiction in the matter, 
to act quickly in granting the project the necessary approvals. Com- 
missioner Starbuck's motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and 
it was passed unanimously that the draft resolution be adopted as 
City Planning Commission Resolution No. 8045. 

INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION OF THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE SAN FRAN- 
CISCO EXECUTIVE PARK, A DEVELOPMENT OF THE YERBY CORPORATION, IN 
COMPLIANCE WITH riTY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7547. 

President Rosenblact welcomed George Yeiby, developer of the pro- 
posed San Francisco Executive Park. Charles Gill, City Planning Co- 
ordinator, recalled that the Commission, in approving the Executive 
Park proposal, had required the development of a Master Plan, in the 
context of which individual aspects of the project would be reviewed. 
He said that this was a presentation of that Master Plan. There is 
no action before the Commission at this time, he said. 

CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF A MODIFICATION TO A PORTION OF 
THE 80-X HEIGHT AND BULK DISTRICT IN THE CIVIC CENTER AREA. 

Charles Gill, City Planning Coordinator, represented the staff 
of the Department. He summarized the following memorandum dated, 
August 21, 1978, from R. Spencer Steele, Assistant Director-Implemen- 
tation (Zoning Administrator) to the City Planning Commission: 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -3- AUGUST 24, 1978 

"The Department's policies for development in the 
Civic Center area are based on the general goal of having 
any new buildings complement the major existing public 
buildings. The established 80-X Height and Bulk District 
for this area relates to this goal by j "oviding for new 
buildings to be equal to or lower in height than the 
major cornice elements of City Hall, Civic Auditorium, 
the State Building, the Library and the old Federal 
Building which are all at a height of approximately 
80 feet above Civic Center Plaza. This District also 
assures that the City Hall dome will always be the 
highest and most prominent element in the Civic Center. 

"There are currently three possible development 
sites adjacent to United Nations Plaza at the east end 
of the Civic Center. One site is adjacent to the Orpheum 
Theater and has been proposed for development of an 
office/commercial building by Mr. Haig G. Mardikian. The 
other two sites are adjacent to the Cokesbury Bookstore 
building, with one of those sites being owned by BARTD 
and soon to be offered for sale. 

"The Department has prepared Development Guidelines 
for these sites which call for development to complement 
the major Civic Center buildings. Since the old Federal 
Building (50 United Nations Plaza) is also adjacent to 
the Plaza, it is the main existing building to be con- 
sidered in the design of new buildings. Due to the 
topography of the Civic Center area, the height of the cor- 
nice element of this building is approximately 95 feet 
above United Nations Plaza. 

"In order for any new buildings or the subject sites 
to follow the Department's guidelines 3 to relating to 
the height of the old Federal Building, it would be neces- 
sary for such development to exceed a height of 80 feet. 
At this time, the Department recommends that the Commission 
initiate a modification of the 80-X Height and Bulk District 
east of Hyde Street to provide a 95-X District inst~ad. 
Subsequent to this initiation, the relevant environmental 
evaluation and preparation for a public hearing would be 
carried out by the Department." 

Commissioner Bierman asked if shadows would be increased as a 
result of development under what was being proposed. R. Spencer 
Steele, Zoning Administrator, said that possibly one (1) additional 
foot of shadow would be added at mid-day. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -4- AUGUST 24, 1978 

Commissioner Starbuck asked if the Landmarks Board had had a 
chance to comment. Mr. Steele said that the President of the Board 
had some reservations. There would be a full hearing process and 
her concerns could be discussed at that time, he said. 

President Rosenblatt said that he had reservations based on the 
staff time which might be required. 

Commissioner Bierman wondered if it was not a mistake to look at 
only the option of increased height. We ought to really get in and 
see what we want and need there, she said. 

John Toland, representing Mr. Haig Mard kian, said that they had 
not asked for the proposal. It would seem impropriate that the Com- 
mission initiate action to look at all the issues, he said. 

Mr. Walter Caplan, property owner at 100 United Nations Plaza, 
said that he opposed any increased heights. There could be adverse 
impact in terms of increased shadows, he said. 

Commissioner Bierman moved approval of the draft resolution, if 
the Department would look at both sides of the height issue. 

Commissioner Dearman said that she would second the motion. 

Mr. Steele suggested that the last line of the "Therefore Be It 
Resolved" clause of the draft resolution be amended to read "an 80-X 
to a height, to be determined, ranging from 25 feet to 100 feet." 

The draft resolution as amended passed unanimously as City Plan- 
ning Commission Resolution No. 8046. 

DR78.66 - CONSIDERATION OF DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF BUILDING 

PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 7804316 FOR 1500 POLK STREET 
AT THE CORNER OF CALIFORNIA. 

PROPOSED ADDITION TO EXISTING SAVINGS AND LCAN 
ASSOCIATION AND REMOVAL OF PARKING LOT. 

R. Spencer Steele, Zoning Administrator, said that the proposed 
expansion was a violation of the guidelines related to specific types 
of uses in C-l and C-2 districts. For this reason, he said, the 
recommendation is for Discretionary Review. 

The staff recommendation for Discretionary Review was moved by 
Commissioner Dearman, seconded by Commissioner Mi2 1er and passed unan- 
imously by a vote of 6-0. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -5- AUGUST 24, 1978 

DR78.66 - DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 
NO. 7804316 FOR 1500 POLK STREET AT THE CORNER OF 
CALIFORNIA STREET. 

PROPOSED ADDITION TO EXISTING SAVINGS AND LOAN 
ASSOCIATION AND REMOVAL OF PARKING LOT. 

A case report was available. It was summarized by Mary Anne 
Miller, Planner II. 

Patrick Hallinan represented the applicant, American Savings and 
Loan. Urging approval, Mr. Hallinan said that there would be no dis- 
placement of residential use and no modification of neighborhood char- 
acter. The lot presently being used for parking, he said, is small 
and problematic in terms of access. This institution serves a ped- 
estrian clientele. We need to expand to properly serve our present 
customers, he said. 

With respect to possible use of the mezzanine area, Mr. Hallinan 
repr-- nded to Commissioner Dearman' n question by saying that people 
just don't want to walk upstair;; for banking services. 

Responding to Commissioner Ctarbuck, Mr. Hallinan said that only 
three (3) parking spaces would be lost because of the curb cut. 

Rai Y. Okamoto, Director of Planning, asked the Commission to 
allow the staff to work with the architect with respect to design. 
Access to the parking lot Is problematic, he said. 

Commissioner Miller said that he would be prepared to vote for 
approval subject to some positive accord, between the staff and pro- 
ject architect, related to design features. Commissioner Miller 
moved the Commission's intent to approve. 

The Director said that there were two issues which differentiated 
this proposal from others. There is the possibility of the inclusion 
of retail use long the ground floor and there is the removal of pos- 
sible traffic conflicts in terms of access to the parking lot, he said 

Mr. Hallinan said that, in terms of the guidelines, the neighbor- 
hood is not being critically impacted. We are not bringing in new 
customers and we want only what the Code allows, he said. 

Commissioner Bierman seconded the intent to approve subject to 
review of final plans. 

Commissioner Starbuck said that he could not vote for approval 
because the parking lot was useful, Savings and Loans are expanding 
generally, not seeking additional locations, other Savings and Loans 
in the area will come with expansion plans and the parking lot could 
be developed commercially consistent with California Street. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -6- AUGUST 24, 1978 

The matter failed by a vote of 3-3 and was adopted as Commission 
Resolution No. 8047. (Voting yes: Commissioners Bierman, Miller, 
Rosenblatt; voting no: Commissioners Dearman, Matoff, Starbuck.) (In 
accordance with City Planning Commission rules and regulations, a tie 
vote on any matter before the Commission shall be deemed to be a dis- 
approval . ) 

STAFF REPORT ON THE 4TH STREET RAMP TO 1-280 AND RELATED 
WATERFRONT TRANSPORTATION ISSUES. 

President Rosenblatt suggested that this matter be continued 
indefinitely . 

Commissioner Starbuck moved that the matter be continued to 
August 31, 1978. For that meeting, he said, a resolution related to 
the proposed ramp to 1-280, should be calendared under Commissioners' 
Questions and Matters. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion and 
it passed unanimously. 

STAFF PRESENTATION ON SOLAR ENERGY ISSUES IN SAN FRANCISCO - 
MASTER PLAN AND CITY PLANNING CODE IMPLICATIONS. 

Commissioner Starbuck asked and the Commission agreed to have 
the staff bring to the Commission alternative proposals for amending 
the City Planning Codo to en.uurage solar s "tens and to alleviate 
difficulties now existing for those who wis'.: to install passive solar 
systems. One alternative was to stress Exemp tions for solar collec- 
tor's from floor area ratio limits and for solar greenhouses from 
rear yard and setback requirements. The other alternative was to 
stress A Simple Variance Procedure for any solar system which, because 
of yard or setback requirements, would have to be considered as a 
variance . 

DR78.62 - CONSIDERATION OF DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF BUILDING 

PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 7807390 FOR 2275 MARKET STREET. 
PROPOSED DISCO/BAR AND TWO RETAIL SHOPS. 

R. Spencer Steele, Zoning Administrator, said that the appli- 
cant's previous plans had been modified and therefore the matter was 
back before the Commission. 

Mr. Steele said that a number of neighborhood associations and 
residents of the area were requesting a continuance. 

President Rosenblatt asked if Mr. Steele recommended Discretionary 
Review. Mr. Steele replied in the affirmative. 

Commissioner Bierman moved that the Commission take Discretionary 
Review. It was seconded by Commissioner Dearman and passed unanimously 



MINUTES OF THE REGULA JETING -7- AUGUST 24, 1978 

DR78.62 - DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 
NO. 7807390 FOR 2275 MARKET STREET. 
PROPOSED DISCO/BAR AND TWO RETAIL SHOPS. 

Commissioner Bierman said that she had had calls from people who 
had not known of the hearing and had not had time to prepare. She 
moved that the matter be continued. Commissioner Dearman seconded 
the motion. 

Rick Stokes, an attorney, represented the applicants. Mr. Stokes 
said that the applicants had met with neighbors and had made attempts 
to meet neighborhood concerns. 

Commissioner Bierman said that her concern was the impact of 350 
people coming to a dance hall in that neighborhood. 

President Rosenblatt said that the Commission had always been 
concerned that new development be as compatible as possible with the 
existing development. 

Steve Roake, of the Upper Market Street Improvement Association, 
said that the applicants had not met with the neighborhood in good 
faith. 

Robert Charrot, the applicant, said that he and his partner, Dan 
Turner, had done everything which they had been asked to do. 

Patricia Smith, a resident of the area said that she had not 
had sufficient notice and that she was not prepared to respond. 

Responding to Presidcmt Rosenblatt, Mary Anne Miller, Planner II, 
said that the change in propos J hours of operation and the intro- 
duction of commercial uses were the major differences between the 
old and new proposals. 

Commissioner Bierman said that at the last hearing, she had meant 
total commercial use as opposed to a combination of commercial use 
and a dance hall. 

President Rosenblatt asked if indeed the new proposal had been 
discussed with the neighborhood. 

Dick Jolson, a resident at 68 Benver Street, said that because 
of insufficient notice, many people who ought to be present were 
not there . 

Cade Morrow of the Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association, 
said that the proposal could seriously impact the neighborhood and 
urged continuance. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -8- AUGUST 24, 1978 

Patrick O'Mally, a resident at 221 Noe Street, urged continuance. 

Bob Hollers asked if the Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association 
represented the entire area. 

Wayne Forley of the Tavern Guild, said that he was shocked if 
Commissioner Bierman was saying that she had not had the time to do 
her homework. 

President Rosenblatt indicated that it had been moved to continue 
the matter. The motion failed by a vote of 2-4. (Voting yes- Com- 
missioners Dearman and Miller; voting no: Commissioners Bierman, 
Matoff, Rosenblatt and Starbuck.) 

A case report was available. It was summarized by Mary Anne 
Miller, Planner II. She concluded her report by saying that In 
theory the building code would allow an occupancy of 764 persons. 

Rick Stokes, representing the applicants, said that there would 
be no use after 2:00 a.m.; that the 16th Street doors would be closed; 
that an acoustic engineer would be retained for noise abatement; that 
litter would be regulated by security guards; that no one would be 
allowed to enter with a bottle or flask; and that the Flying Dutch- 
man Valet Parking Service would be retained for an off-street parking 
service . 

Responding to Commissioner Bierman, Mr. Stokes said that there 
was at this time, no firm agreement with Safeway, for the evening use 
of Its lot. 

Dan Turner, the applicant, said that he possessed 1100 signatures 
of people who favored the project. 

Responding to Commissioners Bierman and Matoff, Mr. Charrot said 
that he believed that a majority of his customers would reside in the 
immediate or surrounding area. 

Responding to President Rosenblatt, Mary Anne Miller said that 
with respect to the Building Code, the proposed disco portion of the 
facility would accommodate 764 persons. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -9- AUGUST 24, 1978 

Noting that the applicants proposed a facility to accommodate a 

maximum of 300 persons, President Rosenblatt asked the applicants 

how they intended to limit occupancy. Mr. Turner said that it would 
be controlled. 

Responding to President Rosenblatt, Jim Verling of Flying Dutch- 
man Valet Service said that his service would cost approximately 
$2.00 per person, but that, at this point, he had no firm commitment 
for parking areas. 

The following persons spoke and urged approval of the proposal: 

1. Henry Le Lou, Castro Street resident. 

2. John Hedges, San Francisco "DJ" Association. 

3 . Bob Lawson 

4. Mike Grenier 

5. John Schmidt 

6. Bob Humphreys 

7. Joy Piatt 

8. Ralph Deminig 

9. Walter Caplan 

Those who spoke in favor stressed the applicant's experience and 
history of success with OIL CAN HARRY'S. Further, they asserted that 
the neighborhood needed the type of facility proposed. 

Those who spoke in opposition stressed that the area was already 
saturated with bars; that a moritorium was needed; that it would be 
impossible to limit occupancy to 300 persons; and that the facility 
was rcuch too large;that the valet service would not work; that it 
would not be neighborhood serving and that it would destroy the 
residential-commercial balance in the area. 

The following persons spoke in opposition to the proposal: 

1. Grey Schwartzshield of the Eureka Valley Neighborhood 
Association . 

2. Steve Roake, of the Upper Market St.eet Improvement Associa- 
tion . 

3. Patricia Smith, of the Prosper Street Residents. 

4. Jude Laspa, of the Mayor's Committee on Upper Market Street. 

5. Peter Gaffney, an area resident. 

6. Karen Opana, of the Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association, 

7. Joe Bell, resident at 169 Noe Street. 

8. Michael Siskovitch, a resident at 16th and Sanchez Streets. 

9. Pat O'Mally, resident at 15th and Noe Streets. 
10. Cade Morrow, resident at 17th and Beaver Streets. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -10- AUGUST 24, 1978 

At the conclusion of the public testimony, the Director of Plan- 
ning, Rai Y. Okamoto, said that the staff was not prepared to recom- 
mend for approval. The crucial issue, he said is size. All of the 
other issues are a function of size, he said. 

Mr. Stokes urged the Commission to vote and not to continue the 
matter. Mr. Stokes said that, after consulting with his clients, he 
was urging the Commission to act immediately. 

The Director said that if he was asked for a recommendation based 
on testimony at the hearing, he could not recommend affirmatively. 

President Rosenblatt asked if there was any action from the 
Commission . 

Commissioner Starbuck moved disapproval. He said that it was 
the age old conflict between residential and commercial uses. It 
would be a big operation and there is major potential for adverse 
impact, he said. 

Commissioner Dearman said that there were already so many bars 
in the area. She seconded the motion. 

President Rosenblatt said that he intended to vote "no". He 
said that the issue was not gays vs straights; it was residential 
vs commercial use, he said. 

The motion passed unanimously and was adopted as City Planning 
Commission Resolution No. 8048. 

The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lee Woods 
Secretary 



SAN FRANCISCO 
^pCITY PLANNING COMMISSION 

^ Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday. September 7, 1978. 

The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, 
September 7, 1978, at 1:30 p.m., in Room 282, City Hall. 

PRESENT: Toby Rosenblatt, President; Ina F. Dearman, Vice- 
President; Susan J. Bierman, Thomas Matoff, Thomas 
Miller, Yoshio Nakashima, and Charles Starbuck, 
members of the City Planning Commission. 

ABSENT: None. 

The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by 
Rai Y. Okamoto, Director of Planning; Robert W. Passmore, Planner V 
(Zoning) ; Alec Bash, City Planning Coordinator; James Miller, Planner 
II; Eva Levine, CETA Staff Aide; and Mohini Mirchandani, Acting 
Secretary . 

The press was represented by Gerald Adams of the San Francisco 
Examiner and Dan Borsuk of the San Francisco Progress. 

CURRENT MATTERS 

Rai Y. Okamoto, Director of Planning, informed the Commission that 
the Board of Permit Appeals had the week before, overruled the Depart- 
ment of City Planning in the matter of Discretionary Review in connec- 
tion with 1059 Union Street. 

The Director further said that the Board of Permit Appeals, by a 
tie vote of 2-2, sustained the Zoning Administrator's determination on 
the Ralph K. Davies Medical Center. 

The Director also informed the Commission that the Board of Super- 
visors had sustained the City Planning Commission's action on the mat- 
ter of Walden House by voting 6-4 against the appeal. 

The Director further mentioned that the Planning, Hous.ifig and De- 
velopment Committee of the Board of Supervisors would hold meetings on 
the 12th, 13th and 14th of September, in the Board Chambers at 7:00 
p.m., to consider the Residential Zoning Study recommendations as ap- 
proved by the Commission in June 1978. 

The Director also advised the Commission about the Implementation 
Committee Meeting to be held on Thursday, September 14th, at 10:00^ a.M. 

The Director asked the Commissioners if they would like to go on 
a field trip on Thursday, September 14th, in order to look at the 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -2- SEPTEMBER 7, 1978 

Non-Conforming Use Gas Stations on 19th Avenue, which were on the Com- 
mission's calendar that day. The Commissioners indicated that they 
would visit the sites on their own, on receiving a list of the sites 
to be visited. 

The Director informed the Commission about the Northeastern Water- 
front Advisory Committee Meeting next Monday, at 2:00 p.m. at the 
Chamber of Commerce office at 465 California Street, to review the 
Waterfront Work Project Area Study. 

The Director said that the Department expected to be visited by 
the Grand Jury Committee, sometime on September 12th. 

Referring to the Commissioners' query sometime ago about the pro- 
posed legislation pertaining to tables and chairs on public sidewalks, 
the Director said that he had then informed the Commission that the 
legislation as read originally provided Master Plan review referral 
process by the Commission. However, he said, that the City Attorney 
had since that time commented that according to Charter, Section 3.651, 
appeals of Permits should go to the Board of Permit Appeals and as 
such it was his opinion that the section in the proposed legislation 
allowing appeals to go to the Board of Supervisors, was not appro- 
priate. The Director said that the Department would want to disagree 
about the appeals of Master Plan referrals going to the Board of Ap- 
peals. He said that the matter was calendared to be heard by the 
Streets and Transportation Committee at their October meeting. 

Commissioner Starbuck requested that the Director assign a staff 
member to check with the Mayor's Office to determine the date on which 
the supplementary appropriation for Open Space would be submitted to 
the Finance Committee, and also to make sure that the members of that 
committee get a copy of the resolution passed by the Commission last 
month. He said that a copy of the resolution be made available to the 
members of the Board of Supervisors also. 

Commissioner Starbuck thanked George Williams, Assistant Director- 
Plans and Programs, for providing a list of consultant studies under- 
taken in the Plans and Programs Division of the Department and sugges- 
ted that the list be expanded to include all those consulting contracts 
which were undertaken not only by the City Planning Department but 
also by Community Development or EDA. 

The Director informed the Commission that he had had a meeting 
with representatives of the Heritage Foundation and that they had a 
study under way which would result in proposals with possible modifi- 
cations of the Landmarks Preservation Section of the City Planning 
Code. He said that it was his understanding that the sturdy would: not 
prop.se any substantive changes but would be. more concerned about being 
specific as to the criteria. He said that the Department would moni- 
tor the study actively. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -3- SEPTEMBER 7, 1978 

The Director mentioned a technical problem relating to the condo- 
minium conversion cases which were turned down by the Commission and 
heard by the Board of Supervisors. He said that generally the Board 
did not have the Department's recommended conditions on hand and sug- 
gested that these be made available to the Board as part of the De- 
partment's Case Report. 

The Director stated that he had had a meeting that morning with 
the Transportation Policy Group (TPG) at which everyone agreed in 
principle on the 4th Street On-Ramp to 1-280. He said he expected the 
Public Utilities and City Planning Commission to adopt a resolution 
to indicate their dissatisfaction with the proposal. 

He hoped, he said, that the Commission would agree to incorporate 
in that resolution a request of the staff through TPG to develop a 
further resolution to take to the Board, which would also t xpress 
their dissatisfaction. 

President Rosenblatt asked the Secretary to calendar the Resolu- 
tion as a separate item in the next week's agenda. 

CU78.37 - 4235 MORAGA STREET, SOUTH SIDE, 60.92 FEET EAST OF THE 
GREAT HIGHWAY; LOT 45 IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 2001. 
PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS IN A RESI- 
DENTIAL CARE FACILITY FROM 6 TO 8, IN AN EXISTING R- 3 
(LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) AND PROPOSED 
RH-2 (HOUSE, TWO-FAMILY) DISTRICT. 

Jim Miller, Planner II, presenting the staff report on the case, 
described the zoning of the surrounding areas and said that the Section 
203.2(g) of the Planning Code required Conditional Use Athorization 
for a rest house, or home for the aged where accommodation was provided 
for more than six patients, and th <*.t the project appeared to be in con- 
formity with the Master Plan. He further said that the California 
Department of Health, Community Care Licensing Division had no objec- 
tion to the proposed expansion. Mr. Passmore said that the Department 
recommended authorization of Conditional Use subject to further con- 
ditions . 

President Rosenblatt asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor or 
against the project. No one responded. 

Commissioner Miller moved that the project be approved, Commis- 
sioner Dearman seconded and it was unanimously carried that the draft 
resolution be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 8054 
with the following "Resolved" clause: 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -4- SEPTEMBER 7, 1978 

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning 
Commission finds that the criteria set forth in Section 
303(c) of the City Planning Code are met and said Con- 
ditional Use is hereby AUTHORIZED in accordance with stan- 
dards specified in the City Planning Code and subject 
to further conditions as follows: 

"1. The subject facility shall comply with the 
regulations of the San Francisco Fire Code. 

"2. The subject facility shall obtain a license 
for eight patients from the Community Care 
Licensing Division of the California Depart- 
ment of Health prior to any expansion. 

"3. The number of patients in the subject facility 
shall be limited to a maximum of eight. 

"4. The applicant shall install and maintain a 

street tree in front of the subject property, 
subject to the approval of the Department of 
Public Works Tree Planting Division. 

"5 . The building exterior shall not be altered from 

its present residential character, no signs shall 
be placed on the subject property, and the build- 
ing shall be kept in a neat and attractive manner." 

CU78.44 - 906 HOJS^RD STREET, NORTH CORNER OF MASON STREET; 
LOT 7 IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 3725. 

PROPOSAL FOR AN 8-UNIT MULTIPLE DWELLING IN A 
C-3-S (DOVNTOWN SUPPORT) DISTRICT. 

Jim Miller, Planner II, summarized the staff report on the pro- 
ject and said that the area was characterized by heavy commercial 
uses, most of it being developed as the printing plant (and its an- 
cilliary uses) of the San Francisco Newspaper Agency. He said that 
it was possible that noise emanating from the printing operations 
could pose a problem for a nearby residential use. He said that there 
were several residential hotels in the area and some flats and apart- 
ments on the neighboring alleys; that the Yerba Buena Redevelopment 
Area was a block to the east; and that the Redevelopment Area included 
several housing sites, primarily for the elderly. 

Mr. Miller said that the Planning Code provisions reguired Con- 
ditional Use Authorization for multiple dwelling units in a C-3-S 
district and also required a provision for "a rear yard, open space 
and off-street parking." Since, he'said -there did not exist any 



Off-Street Parking or rear yard in this case, a variance application 
was filed with the Department and heard by the Zoning Administrator on 
August 16, 1978. The decision on that application, he said, was still 
pendJLng . 

Mr. Miller further said that the Residence Element of the Master 
Plan (.encourages multi-residential development in conjunction with 
commercial uses in the downtown commercial area. 

Replying to a question from Commissioner Bierman, Robert W . Pass- 
more Planner V (Zoning) , said that the project was under a categorical 
exemption from the Environmental Review, for minor alterations. 

Mr. Martin A. McVeigh, the applicant, said that the hotel was 
very difficult to run and conversion of the hotel into an 8-unit 
apartment building was the best possible plan. He said that the plan 
would improve the appearance of the neighborhood and would cater to 
the working people. He said that it was financially not feasible to 
convert its use to a commercial use. 

Mr. Daniel McVeigh, son of the applicant, said that the hotel 
was closed since 1976 and submitted the following statement: 

"This is a statement in support of the granting of 
a conditional use permit for the property located on the 
Northeast corner of 5th Street and Howard. The property 
is presently the site of the M & M Tavern nd the Hotel 
George . 

"The five story structure known as the Hotel George 
was built circa 1912 and initially served as a rooming 
house. It was later used as a hotel ^or working people and 
pensioners. Approximately twenty years ago, the present 
owner of the property, Martin A. McVeigh, purchased the 
Hotel George and converted the bottom floor into what is 
now the M £• M Tavern. 

"Mr. McVeigh has owned and has personally run the 
M & M since 1946. The initial location of the bar; estab- 
lished by Mr. McVeigh's Father, was a half block up from its 
present location at 150 5th Street, just across from where 
the old Flower Mart used to stand. In or around 1958, Mr. 
McVeigh was unable to get his lease renewed due to the 
projected development plans of the Newspaper. As luck would 
have it, the Hotel George property became available at that 
time and Mr. McVeigh was able to purchase it and convert the 
bottom floor into the M & M Tavern. 

"The family-owned tavern has served meals and drinks to 
the employees of the surrounding businesses for some thirty 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -6- SEPTEMBER 7, 1978 

years. For the last twenty of those thirty years the 
tavern has supported the Hotel George while the hotel 
became increasingly unsuited for the use for which it 
was originally built. In 1976 the hotel was closed and 
plans were drawn up to convert the property to a more 
beneficial use. The plans finally decided upon will 
convert the 48 room hotel into an 8 unit apartment 
building. It is for this purpose that we now seek a 
conditional use permit. 

"The property is located in a C-3-S zoning region. 
The area herein involved, generally the South of Market 
region, contains an admixture of light to moderate com- 
mercial use and multi-family residences. Most of the 
residential housing is older and located on the alleys 
between the major streets . The recent addition of 
apartment complexes for the elderly and disadvantaged 
have increased the residential composition of the area. 

"The use envisioned for the Hotel George will be a 
less intensive one than it's prior permitted use. The 
completion of the projected plans will create no new 
demand upon public services except in theory reduce 
the potential demand. The facelift planned for the 
building can only positively effect the property values 
and appearance of the neighborhood. Continuation of the 
present use or non-use of the building will only run 
contrary to the effort in the South of Market area a- 
way from cheap, Skid Row type accommodations that exist 
only a half block away. 

-The location of the property is ideal for this 
proposed residential use. As the suburban flight slows 
a bit and one can discern a movement of people back to 
the City, it is unfortunate that housing suited to the 
needs of the people moving back into the City is unavail- 
able. For the working person or couple, the centralized 
location of the property is an attractive feature. Public 
transportation is but a stone's throw away and the weather 
is consistently better than most parts of the City. In 
addition, the advent of the Yerba Buena development has 
highlighted the increasing need for moderate and low- 
priced housing. The contemplated use of this property 
is a small step in that direction; a step, though, that 
is consistent with the existing pattern of use in the area. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -7- SEPTEMBER 7, 1978 

"The conversion of the property to a strictly commer- 
cial use has been considered and been found to be financially 
unfeasible. Over $150,000 would be required to initially 
upgrade the building to meet the earthquake standards for 
commercial buildings. Other additional costs would also be 
incurred before a penny could be spent on the actual recon- 
struction -iof the building. Given the present and the 
predictable future rental value of commercial property in 
this area, this is a financially bankrupt prospect. 

"Consequently, for all of the above-mentioned reasons, 
the conditional use permit should be granted. Mr. McVeigh 
has demonstrated his concern and has contributed his efforts 
to the enrichment of the South of Market area for over 
thirty years. He seeks now to use his property in a manner 
that is in accord with the interests of the immeidate neigh- 
bors, is less intensive than its present use and which sat- 
isfies a salient need of the public generally for moderately 
priced housing. I would request that a conditional use 
permit be granted." 

Mary Schafer, a resident at 934 Howard Street, spoke in favor of 
the conversion and said that if one piece of property increased in 
value, it benefited the surrounding property also. 

Mr. Alan C. Freeland, representing the San Francisco Newspaper 
Agency, requested that a 30-day continuance be granted t ; allow them 
to contribute business and professional expertise to the owner of the 
property, in order to demonstrate to Mr. McVeigh the feasibility of 
a purely commercial use of his property. He said that the Chronicle 
and the Examiner proposed to expand their non-editing functions and 
that proposed development was not finally determined. He said that 
they would need additional space to make room for expansion and that the 
proposed residential use of the property would be inharmonious and in- 
compatible with the intensive commercial use of the surrounding area. 
The agency's formal request as follows, was submitted to the Commj.ssior 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -8- SEPTEMBER 7, 1978 

"The essential question posed by these applications 
is whether the proposed residential use is harmonious 
and compatible with the specific, existing commercial 
uses now in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel. 

"The entire block between Mission and Howard and 
Fifth and Mary Streets, except the subject parcel at 
the corner of Fifth and Howard, is owned by Chronicle 
and Hearst. Approximately two-thirds of that block is 
now developed and fully operating as newsprint storage 
and newspaper production facilities for the Chronicle, 
the Examiner, and the Sunday Examiner & Chronicle. The 
remainder of that property, bordered by Natoma and 
Howard Streets, is used mainly as a truck staging area 
and storage facility. However, that entire property is 
now being developed to expand the existing newspaper 
plant storage and production facilities. The plant 
expansion consists of an extension of the existing C-3-S 
uses, including operation of printing presses, inserting 
equipment, newspaper bundling machinery, truck and dis- 
tribution facilities, and newsprint storage. Although 
the precise configuration of the plant expansion has not 
yet been determined, essentially these existing specific 
uses will abut and isolate the subject parcel. The present 
noise environment in this area is dominated by traffic not 
only during normal business hours but also throughout the 
night as newspapers are distributed to the entire Bay Area, 
swing and graveyard shift employees come and go, and news- 
print and other supplies are delivejod to the newspaper 
plant. While these existing uses, carried on around the 
clock, are not inconsistent with an office or other com- 
mercial use of the object property, the nature and timing 
of these surrounding uses render a residential use of that 
property impractical. 

"The San Francisco Newspaper Agency seeks this exten- 
sion to enable the Agency, its real property advisors and 
the architectural firm of Uill-Thornton & Levikow, at the 
Agency's sole cost and expense, to demonstrate to Mr. 
McVeigh the feasibility and financial advantage of a 
purely commercial use of his property. In this connection, 
we note that the owner's present plan already calls for a 
combination of uses over his bar--residtential and commercial 
'studio' space is contemplated for each of the 8 units he 
proposes. Deletion of the residential element in that pro- 
posal, in light of the specific commercial uses taking 
place on the surrounding property, will advantage all in- 
terests and, accordingly, the San Francisco Newspaper Agency 
respectfully requests this brief extension." 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -9- SEPTEMBER 7, 1978 

Mr. Martin A. McVeigh said that the Chronicle publishing com- 
pany and the Hearst Corporation were aware of their plan 2/3 years 
back and referred to his letter of September 1976. He said that they 
were not interested at that time in the property being use commer- 
cially . 

Mr. Freeland said that according to their real estate advisor, 
a 30-day time period would enable them to convince the owner of the 
advisibility of having commercial use and in that case there would be 
no need for Conditional Use Authorization. 

President Rosenblatt inquired if the agency proposed to supply 
the owner with the economic analysis and market data. Mr. Martin 
McVeigh said that they had already looked into that and that it was 
not practical to use the property for commercial use. 

Mr. Daniel McVeigh said that over $150,000 would be required to 
update the building to meet the earthquake standards for commercial 
buildings . 

Commissioner Bierman said that Mr. McVeigh had a point that if 
the continuance was granted, their project would be delayed unnecess- 
arily . 

Mr. Levikow : *ed if a 30-day continuance was such a hardship. 
Mr. McVeigh asked why this suggestion was made now and why it couldn't 
have been made before. 

The Director said that zoning allows mixed use and that on the 
practical side this discussion could still take place. 

Commissioner Miller asked if the decision on the variance which 
was yet to be given, could cancel the Commission's decision. The 
Director replied in the affirmative. 

Commissioner Miller moved for the 30-day continuance. No one 

seconded . 

Commissioner Starbuck moved for approval of the conditional use 
authorization. Commissioner Bierman seconded and it was carried by a 
vote of 5-2, that the draft resolution be adopted as City Planning 
Commission Resolution No. 8055. (Voting yes: Commissioners Bierman, 
Dearman, Matoff, Nakashima, Starbuck; voting no: Commissioners 
Miller and Rosenblatt.) 

The resolution contained the following "Resolved" clause: 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -10- SEPTEMBER 7, 1978 

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning 
Commission finds that the criteria set forth in Section 
303(c) of the City Planning Code are met and said 
Conditional Use is hereby AUTHORIZED in accordance with 
standards specified in the City Planning Code and subject 
to further conditions as follows: 

"1. The owner shall provide written notification 
to all prospective tenants of the building of 
the possibility of noise emanating from the 
neighboring printing plant and its ancillary 
uses, and of the applicable City regulations 
controlling said noise emanation. 

"2. The applicant shall install and maintain three 
street trees, two along the Howard Street 
frontage and one along the Fifth Street frontage, 
subject to the approval of the Department of Public 
Works Tree Planting Division. 

"3. This authorization is contingent upon the granting 
of Variance Application VZ78.72 by the Zoning 
Administrator, or upon the applicant's otherwise 
meeting applicable provisions of the City Plan- 
ning Code." 

CU78.45 - 899 PINE STREET, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MASON STREET; 
LOT 13 IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 273. 

PROPOSAL FOR A RESTAURANT AND COCKTAIL LOUNGE 
ACCESSORY TO A HOTEL IN THE NOB HILL SPECIAL USE 
DISTRICT IN AN EXISTING R-5 (HIGHEST DENSITY MULTIPLE 
RESIDENTIAL) AND PROPOSED RM-4 (MIXED RESIDENTIAL, 
HIGH LENSITY) DISTRICT. 

Robert W. Passmore, Planner V (Zoning), informed the Commission 
that the staff, in concurrence with the applicant, recommended that thi: 
item be continued to October 5, 1978. 

It was moved by Commissioner Bierman and seconded by Commissioner 
Miller and carried unanimously that the matter be continued to October 
5, 1978. 

zm78.9 - 1373-79 - 47th avenue, west side, 100 feet north of 

judah street; lots 10a and 11 in assessor's block 1802. 
proposal to change zoning use district from an r-2 
(two-family residential) district to an r-3 (low medium 
denisty multiple residential) district. 

Jim Miller, Planner II, referred to the case report prepared by 
the staff in this connection and described the surrounding land use 
and zoning. He said that the Planning Code provisions permit R-2 and 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -11- SEPTEMBER 7, 1978 

RH-2 to have one dwelling unit per 1500 square feet of lot area, where- 
as R- 3 and RM-1 permit one dwelling unit per 800 square feet of lot 
area. This would allow 11 dwelling units on the subject property. He 
further said that a negative declaration for the project was issued on 
August 8, 1978. 

A represenative of Dante Giosso & Sons Construction Co., owner of 
the property, spoke in favor of the project. 

A resident of property on 48th Avenue , also spoke in favor of the 
reclassification, stating that it would be good for the neighborhood 
and that the tenants around the area were in favor of building on this 
property . 

Mrs. Evelyn Wilson, President of SPEAK, spoke in opposition and 
said that the property should not be zoned higher than it was and that 
it should be retained as a residential area. 

Dale M. Bu*ler, of 1590 - 46th Avenue, questioned how one could 
justify tearing down housing and building large apartments which would 
destroy neighborhood character. 

Mr. Passmore said that the Planning Commission had recently 
adopted Residential Zoning Study recommendations and that the proposed 
rezoning would not be in keeping with those recommendations. He said 
that the staff recommendation was for disapproval of the application 

Commissioner Miller moved that the application be disapproved, 

Commissioner Matoff seconded and it was carried unanimously that the 

draft resolution be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution 
No. 8056. 

S78.4 - SOUTH SIDE OF LOMBARD STREET FROM A POINT 109.75 FEET 
EAST OF FRANKLIN STREET TO VAN NESS AVENUE; LOTS 29 
AND 30 IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 503. 
ABOLITION OF A 28-FOOT SET-BACK LINE. 

R78.10 - ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOMBARD 
STREET AND VAN NESS AVENUE; PORTION OF LOTS 29 AND 30 
IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 503, FOR LOMBARD STREET RECHANNEL- 
IZATION . 

Alec Bash, City Planning Coordinator, gave a brief background 
history of the set-back, which he said was established in 1940, because 
of contemplated channelization. He said that the Department of Public 
Works was now planning the rechannelization of the intersection of Van 
Ness Avenue and Lombard Street, which would require acquisition from 
Quality Inn and from the State of California of a strip of property 
approximately four feet wide along the Lombard street frontage of the 
property . 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -12- September 7, 1978 

He further said the completion of this rechannelization would 
eliminate any further need for the required set-back. The abolition 
of the set-back, he said, would allow erection on a sign in the set- 
back area, for which Quality Inn had expressed a wish. He said that 
although Lombard Street was within a special district for sign illum- 
ination within which flashing lights were allowed, the Department, in 
response to the concerns expressed by some, and subsequent discussion 
with Quality Inn had agreed not to install a flashing sign within the 
set-back area, in case the set-back was abolished. Mr. Bash further 
said that a variance request for such a sign was denied in 1972, in 
part due to the existence of the set-back restriction. He added that 
the question of the set-back and its width, had been previously con- 
sidered by the Commission in the 1960's and the set-back was retained 
in the absence of final street rechannelization plans. 

Mr. Bash further explained by means of a chart how the proposed 
street widening and provision of an additional right turn lane on 
Lombard Street would affect traffic and would increase the ease and 
safety of the turning maneuver to Van Ness Avenue . He also pointed 
out that the removal of the set-back line would not affect traffic 
adversely, neither would the installation of a sign there by Quality 
Inn . 

Mr. Bash presented a letter in opposition from the California 
Roadside Council. 

President Rosenblatt asked if any one present would like to ask 
any questions . 

Mark Rand, representing the Bureau of Engineering, Department of 
Public Works, explained by means of a chart the pedestrian traffic 
and said that the proposed project would allow the pedestrians free 
movement across the street. He said that the Van Ness/Lombard inter- 
section was ranked as number 6 as far as the number of accidents were 
concerned and that last year as many as 23 accidents occurred near 
that intersection. Something, he said, needed to be done, and the 
proposed rechannelization would help in that respect. 

Commissioner Bierman asked if it would still be possible for the 
Department of Public Works to rechannelize the intersection and pay 
for the property. Mr. Rand said that it was theoretically possible, 
that it was all a matter of allocating the funds. 

In response to a question from the Director of Planning, as to 
how rechannelization would improve pedestrian crossing. Mr. Rand said 
that they proposed to construct an island and a gap for right turns. 
People, he said, stop before turning right, allowing pedestrian to 
cross. Right now, he said, the right turn goes right across the ped- 
estrian path . 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -13- SEPTEMBER 7, 1978 

Roger Marks, attorney representing Quality Inn, said that they 
supported the proposed action. 

Commissioner Miller asked him who first proposed the installation 
of the sign, when the Department of Public Works asked Quality Inn for 
the land. Mr. Marks said he wasn't sure but he believed it was not 
proposed by the Department of Public Works. 

Patrick Catalan, a resident at 1466 Greenwich, and owner of pro- 
perty near Lombard and Van Ness, expressed amazement at what he heard 
at the meeting. He said that he understood that it was Quality Inn 
who approached the Department of Public Works for permission to have 
their sign put up and the Department had then asked for their land. 

He said that the set-back dated from the time when the Golden 
Gate Bridge was first built and now, he said, the Department of Public 
Works decides that there was not need for it, now or in the future. 
He said that putting up this sign would be dangerous for the people 
making a turn at this intersection which was already having too many 
accidents. He further said that Quality Inn didn't need the sign as 
they already had one. He said that if the set-back was granted, 
the sign was bound to be erected as permit was mandatory. Mr. Catalan 
further said, that he understood that twice before t* o set-back was 
requested and denied by the Commission or the Board of Supervisors, 
and he saw no reason why it should be approved now. 

He requested continuance of the matter until such time as the 
matter was thoroughly research.. 

Mr. Bash responded by referring to earlier comments that the reasor 
why the set-back was previously denied was because the concern was 
about any major new construction being built in that area before con- 
struction of Quality Inn. He said that as the matter now stood, there 
was no possibility of additional major new construction and any con- 
struction in the set-back area would necessarily be small. He said 
that the Department of City Planning could review any such construction 
and the matter could, if need be, be taken to the Board of Permit 
Appeals . 

Eleanor F. Dana, residing at 1487 Greenwich Street, at the corner 
of Van Ness and Polk, spoke in opposition to the proposed set-back. 
She said that she objected strongly to any sign that flashed. She 
said that many tour buses park in front of the Quality Inn and that 
the Quality Inn di"n't have enough parking space for its guests and 
that the proposed sign would attract additional guests, adding to the 
congestion. She said that she had heard many accidents taking place 
there early in the morning and requested the Commission to protect 
their interests and to give consideration to human life. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -14- SEPTEMBER 7, 1978 

Mrs. James Wiley, residing at 1132 Union Street and member of the 
Russian Hill Homeowners' Association, spoke against the abolition of 
the set-back line. She said it was a residential area and should not 
have that sign. She said the Motel was doing a good business and 
didn't need any additional sign. 

Walter Baird of 1450 Greenwich Street, also spoke in opposition 
and said that if Quality Inn was giving up something it was to get 
something in return. 

Mr. Murphy, a member of the audience, said that he lived about 
200 feet from the site of the proposed sign and the sign was nothing 
more than a billboard. 

President Rosenblatt asked the Director of Planning, if the staff 
had a recommendation. 

Mr. Passmore said that the staff's recommendation was that the 
set-back should remain, as no public necessity was established. As 
for the acquisition of property for rechannel ization , he said that 
the staff's recommendation was approval as the proposal was in con- 
formity with the Master Plan. 

Commissioner Miller moved the staff recommendation of disapproval 
on removal of the set-back, Commissioner Dearman seconded and the 
motion was carried unanimously, and adopted as City Planning Commission 
Resolution No. 8057. 

Commissioner Miller moved the jtaff recommendation for approval 
of the acquisition of the property, Commissioner Dearman seconded and 
the matter was carried unanimously. 

ZM78.11 - 2425 MARKET STREET, BEGINNING 7.646 FEET NORTHEAST OF 
COLLINGWOOD STREET; LOTS 29 AND 32 IN ASSESSOR'S 
BLOCK 2647. 
PROPOSAL TO CHANGE ZONING USE DISTRICT FROM AN R-4 

(HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT TO A C-2 

(COMMUNITY BUSINESS) DISTRICT. 

Robert W. Passmore, Planner V (Zoning) , said that the applicant 
had asked for continuation of the matter and that the staff recommen- 
dation was to continue the matter to October 5, 1978. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -15- SEPTEMBER 7, 1978 

Jude Laspa of the Eureka Valley Promotion Association, submitted 
a letter of opposition to the p* ->posal of reclassification which read 
as follows : 

"The Eureka Valley Promotion Association is strongly 
opposed to the rezoning of 2425 Market Street from R-4 to 
C-2 for the following reasons. This position is consistent 
with our rezoning study which has been previously submitted 
to you as part of the Residential T '.ezoning Study. 

"1. This property has already been approved for rezoning 
to RH-3 by the City Planning Commission as part of 
the Residential Rezoning Study. 

"2. A previous request by the same applicant to have 
this property reclassified to C-2 was denied by 
the City Planning Commission approximately two 
months ago as part of the Residential Rezoning Study. 

"3. A C-2 zoning of this 12,000 square feet of property 
gives the owner carte blanche to develop the site 
to 100% lot coverage. This is especially undesir- 
able in this case as this property is a buffer 
between the present commercial and residential 
districts and directly abuts on the rear yards of 
a number of residents. 

"4. This site has extremely limited access. 

"5. The Castro Street commercial district is already 
extremely congested and expansion of the commer- 
cial district could put further pressure on the 
present problems in both the commercial and sur- 
rounding residential district. 

"6. Since the request for an R-C zone for the Upper 
Market area was deferred to upcoming study of 
Commercial Zoning on a city wide basis it seems 
inappropriate to consider an expansion of the C-2 
zone without reconsidering the R-C issue. 

"Thank you for your consideration of these issues. 
We hope we will continue to have your support in this matter." 

Commissioner Bierman moved for continuence of the matter to 
October 5, Commissioner Miller Seconded it and the motion was unani- 
mously carried. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -16- SEPTEMBER 7, 1978 

DR77.66 - DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 

NO. 7706350 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 7-UNIT RESIDEN- 
TIAL BUILDING AT 3239 MISSION STREET, EAST LINE, 175 
FEET SOUTH OF FAIR AVENUE. 
(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF AUGUST 31, 1978.) 

After a brief discussion, Mr. Passmore said that the staff's 
recommendation was for approval. 

Commissioner Starbuck moved for approval of the Discretionary Re- 
view, Commissioner Bierman seconded and the motion was passed unani- 
mously and adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 8058. 

CONSIDERATION OF ENDORSEMENT OF THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL 
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PLAN AND PROGRAM FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF 
CITY PLANNING. 

Rai Y. Okamoto, Director of Planning, requested Eva Levine , Plan- 
ner II, to present the Plan to -.the Commission. 

Ms. Levine said that the Affirmative Action and Equal Employment 
Opportunity Plan and Program was the result of 2 years of work by a 
5-member Affirmative Action Committee. She said that the draft before 
the Commission had the input of staff as well as various community 
groups . 

She further said that the Civil Service Commission had adopted 
the Affirmative Action Plan and Policy for Equal Opportunity on March 
21, 1977 and that the Municipal Planners Association, representing 
the majority of the professional staff in the Department had endorsed 
the proposed Plan in January 1978. The Board of Supervisors, she 
said, had adopted an ordinance on August 28, 1978, mandating City 
Officers, boards and Departments to prepare and implement affirmative 
action plans in compliance with relevant Fede-ral , State and. local laws 
and guidelines. 

Commissioner Dearman moved for the endorsement of the Plan, Com- 
missioner Nakashima seconded it and it was carried unaninmously that 
the draft resolution be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution 
No. 8059. 

The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Mohini Mirchandani 
Acting Secretary 



SAW FRANCISCO 
■^ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 

•jj: Minutes of the Regular Meeting held on Thursday, September 14, 1978. 

The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, 
September 14, 1978, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 282, City Hall. 

PRESENT: Toby Rosenblatt, President; Ina F. Dearman, Vice President; 
Susan J. Bierman, Thomas Matoff , Thomas Miller, Yoshio 
Nakashima, Charles Starbuck, members of the City Planning 
Commission. 

ABSENT: None. 

The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Rai Y. 
Okamoto, Director of Planning; George Williams, Assistant Director-Plans and 
Programs; Robert W. Passmore, Planner V (Zoning); Edward Green, Planner I; 
Michelle Anderson, Staff Aide; Larry Mansbach, Staff Aide; Charles Gill, 
City Planning Coordinator; and Mohini Mirchandani, Acting Secretary. 

The press was represented by Gerald Adams of the San Francisco Examiner. 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES 

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 3, 1978, were unanimously 
approved by the City Planning Commission as submitted. 

CURRENT MATTERS 

Rai Y. Okamoto, Director of Planning, asked Robert W. Passmore, Planner V 
((Zoning); to report to the Commission on the matter of statistics required 
by them on discretionary review cases. Mr. Passmore gave a review of these 
cases for the past two fiscal years and said that out of the total of 71 
applications received by the Department for discretionary review, the 
Commission took action on 57 applications, of which 49 were approved and 
8 disapproved. 

The Director informed the Commission that he was interviewed by the 
Grand Jury Committee that week and discussed with them various problems 
of the Department - working conditions and functional as well as staffing 
problems. 

He further reported that the Planning, Housing and Development Committee 
at their second Residential Zoning Study meeting voted to pass the matter 
to the full Board without recommendation, for the Board's action on Monday. 

Referring to the Implementation Committee meeting that morning, the 
Director said that as a result of the crisis created by Prop. 13, it was 
decided that the Department seek supplementary appropriation. He said that 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -2- SEPTEMBER 14, 1978 

the Department would look into the matter of priorities and would determine 
which of the work programs would have to be minimized or eliminated. 

The Director asked George Williams, Assistant Director-Plans and 
Programs, to report to the Commission on the prospects of Market Street 
closure. 

George Williams said that the matter would be analyzed in the Center 
City Circulation Program and that they x^ould be giving their input. He 
referred to the meeting he had the day before with the Mayor and the Trans- 
portation Cluster Group. The Mayor, he said, agreed on the current agenda 
on the Market Street preferential closure. He said they were working through 
Transit Preferential Street Committee who were currently looking at O'Farrell, 
Geary, Van Ness and Stockton Streets. He said he understood that Muni was 
presenting PUC with a list of priorities of Traffic Preferential Streets 
under study. 

Mr. Williams further said that the Commission had sometime ago endorsed 
money for a grant and that a coordinator for Transit Preferential Streets 
Program would soon be hired. 

Commissioner Starbuck asked if the Commission could have a resolution 
agreeing to the concept of this to avoid delay in implementation. 

Mr. Williams replied that the staff would draft a resolution recog- 
nizing the desirability of exploring the concept of the Market Street 
closure. 

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING TO APPLY FOR AND 
RECEIVE $28,000 FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY TO DEVELOP AN 
ALTERNATIVE STREET TREE PROGRAM IN LIGHT OF THE CITY'S BUDGETARY 
CONSTRAINTS . 

The Director said that as some details had yet to be worked out, he 
recommended postponement of the matter. The motion for postponement was 
unanimously approved by the Commission. 

RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CITY 
PLANNING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL OF 
RESTAURANTS IN C-l (NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING) AND C-2 (COMMUNITY BUSINESS) 
ZONING DISTRICTS AND FINANCIAL OFFICES IN C-3-G (GENERAL DOWNTOWN 
COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICTS. 

Robert W. Passmore, Planner V (Zoning), said that in view of continued 
concern expressed over concentration of financial offices, quick stop 
establishments, bars, restaurants and night clubs etc., in C-3-G, C-l 
and C-2 districts, the staff recommended that the Commission declare its 
intention to hold a public hearing to consider a City Planning Code Text 
Amendment, requiring conditional use approval of all financial offices, 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -3- SEPTEMBER 1A, 1978 

quick-stop establishments, bars and restaurants, night clubs etc., in 

the above-mentioned concerned areas. Mr. Passmore suggested that the date 

of hearing could be sometime in mid -October. 

Commissioner Miller moved approval of the staff recommendation, 
Commissioner Nakashima seconded it and it was carried unanimously that the 
draft resolution be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 8060. 

CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION REGARDING 4TH STREET ON -RAMP TO 1-280. 

The Director said that the resolution on the 4th Street on-ramp was 
essentially the same as the one to be adopted by PUC , He said that the 
City had an official "Transit First" policy and that this on-ramp i^ould 
turn 4th Street into a major freeway access route. The resolution, he 
said, recommended that 1) the on-ramp to the Interstate 280 Freeway from 
4th and King Streets as proposed not be constructed, 2) the Board of 
Supervisors be requested to indicate to the California Department of 
Transportation the City's intention that the 4th Street on-ramp project 
be deleted and the funds be reserved by the State and 3) the Transportation 
Policy Group prepare a resolution for transmittal to the Board of Supervisors 
for its consideration. 

Commissioner Bierman suggested that some of the gasoline tax funds 
intended for the on-ramp be used for repairs of city streets. 

Commissioner Starbuck moved the staff recommendation that the proposed 
on-ramp not be constructed. Commissioner Dearman seconded, and it was 
carried unanimously that the draft resolution be adopted as City Planning 
Commission Resolution No. 8061. 

CU76.30 - 2301 - 19TH AVENUE, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SANTIAGO STREET: 
LOT 1 IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 2348. 

PROPOSAL TO REMOVE TERMINATION DATE FOR A NON-CONFORMING 
GASOLILIE SERVICE STATION IN AN R-3 (LOU-MEDIUM DENSITY 
MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT PROPOSED TO BE RECLASSIFIED 
TO AN RH-2 (RESIDENTIAL, TWO-FAMILY) DISTRICT. 

CU78.16 - 2298 - 19TH AVENUE, NORTHEAST CORNER OF SANTIAGO STREET; 
LOT 4H IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 2311. 

PROPOSAL TO REMOVE TERMINATION DATE FOR A NON -CONFORMING 
GASOLINE SERVICE STATION IN AN R-3 (LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY 
MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT PROPOSED TO BE RECLASSIFIED 
TO AN RH-2 (RESIDENTIAL, TWO-FAMILY) DISTRICT. 

CU77.27 - 1401 JUDAH STREET, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AVENUE; LOT 37 
IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 1834. 

PROPOSAL TO REMOVE TERMINATION DATE FOR A NON -CONFORMING 
GASOLINE SERVICE STATION IN AN R-3 (LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY 
MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT PROPOSED TO BE RECLASSIFIED 
TO AN RH-2 (RESIDENTIAL, TWO-FAMILY) DISTRICT. 



MINUTES OF THE ULAR MEETING -4- SEPTEMBER 14, 1978 

CU78.41 - 1400 - 19TH AVENUE, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JUDAH STREET; 
LOT 43 IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 1835. 

PROPOSAL TO REMOVE TERMINATION DATE FOR A NON-CONFORMING 
GASOLINE SERVICE STATION IN AN R-3 (LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY 
MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT PROPOSED TO BE RECLASSIFIED 
TO AN RH-2 (RESIDENTIAL, TWO-FAMILY) DISTRICT. 

CU78.51 - 2095 - 19TK AVENUE, NORTHWEST CORNER OF QUINTARA STREET; 
LOT 12 IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 2139. 

PROPOSAL TO REMOVE TERMINATION DATE FOR A NON -CON FORMING 
GASOLINE SERVICE STATION IN AN R-3 (LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY- 
MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT PROPOSED TO BE RECLASSIFIED 
TO AN RH-2 (RESIDENTIAL, TWO-FAMILY) DISTRICT. 

CU78.52 - 2000 - 19TH AVENUE, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PACHECO STREET; 
LOT 29 IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 2138. 

PROPOSAL TO REMOVE TERMINATION DATE FOR A NON -CONFORMING 
GASOLINE SERVICE STATION IN AN R-3 (LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY 
MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT PROPOSED TO BE RECLASSIFIED 
TO AN RH-2 (RESIDENTIAL, TWO-FAMILY) DISTRICT. 

CU78.53 - 1500 - 19TE AVENUE, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF KIRKHAM STREET; 
LOT 10 IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 1864. 

PROPOSAL TO REMOVE TERMINATION DATE FOR A NON -CONFORMING 
GASOLINE SERVICE STATION IN AN R-3 (LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY 
MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT PROPOSED TO BE RECLASSIFIED 
TO AN RH-2 (RESIDENTIAL, TWO-FAMILY) DISTRICT. 

Robert W. Passmore, Planner V (Zoning), said that as the above- 
mentioned seven items were all proposals to remove termination dates for 
non-conforming gasoline service stations, these would be presented all 
together in one single package. He asked Wayne Rieke, Planner IV, to give 
the Commission a review of the cases. 

Mr. Rieke gave a brief review of the conforming and non-conforming 
gasoline service stations in residential and commercial districts. He 
said that 19th Avenue had nine non-conforming stations, seven of which 
had filed conditional use applications and the remaining two were also 
expected to follow suit. He then summarized the case reports for each of 
the gasoline service stations, described their location, size, existing 
use, zoning classification and surrounding area. 

Mr. Passmore referred to the criteria developed by the Department 
for use in reviewing these gasoline service stations. He said that it 
outlined factors relating to location and design. 

President Rosenblatt asked if any members of the audience wanted to 
speak in favor or in opposition. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -5- SEPTEMBER 14, 1978 

Nicholas A. Dean, a resident of 18th Avenue, said that the amount of 
gas which seemed to be rushing out of the pipes of the Olympic Station 
into the neighbors' backyards was a potential source of danger. He said 
that there were 2 Olympic Service Stations within 2 blocks and that he 
was against the continuance of the Olympic Service Station at 19th Avenue and 
Pacheco Street. 

President Rosenblatt asked if any other members of the audience 
wished to speak. There was no response. 

Mr. Rieke said that two service stations had all night operation - 
Super 7 at 19th and Santiago and a conforming Chevron Station at 19th and 
Ortega. He said that because of late night deliveries at the Texaco Station 
at Kirkham Street, the Department had recieved a letter requesting that 
their application be denied. 

Commissioner Matoff asked if the factor of transit was taken into 
consideration. Mr. Rieke said that the transit was the concern in Judah 
Street because that was where the heavy traffic was. 

President Rosenblatt asked for the staff recommendation for each 
station. 

Mr. Passmore said that in general the Department was in favor of all 
the stations to be continued and that basically the same conditions 
applied to all of them. The conditions laid down that: 

1. The authorization was for use of the property for an automobile 
service station as described in Section 223(g) of the City 
Planning Code. 

2. Discontinuance of the use of the subject property as an automobile 
service station for a period of six months would constitute 
abandonment of the conditional use. 

3. The applicant to review with the staff of the Department of City 
Planning, within six months of the date of approval, the site 
design. 

4. Hours of operation to be limited to usual hours for those stations 
which do not stay open all night and the station to be completely 
closed with no service given or deliveries accepted between the 
hours of 12 midnight and 6 a.m. 

President Rosenblatt asked if any of the applicants wanted to speak. 

Bruce Hageman of Mohawk Petroleum Corp., Inc. spoke in favor of 
removing the termination date for the service station at 2301, 19th Avenue 
and said that if any conditions were imposed, they would cooperate. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -6- SEPTEMBER 14, 1978 

Mr. Hal Miller, representing the applicant, Southland Corporation - 
Super F Division, said that they were seeking to continue their 24-hour 
operation and to rebuild on the facility because security was of prime 
importance. 

Thomas L. Bardet of the Mobil Service Station, said that the condition 
about continuance of the use of the property as an automobile service 
station for a period be extended from 9 to 12 months. He also said that 
the night deliveries did not create any more noise than the traffic at 
19th anyhow. 

Norman Miller, representing the Union Oil Company of California, said 
that he had a petition of 350 people, supporting neighborhood needs of a 
service station. 

T. T. Clausen of Atlantic Richfield Company, spoke in favor of continuance 
of his service station located at 2095 - 19th Avenue. 

Fred Bertetta, Jr., of Olympian Oil Co., referred to the complaint 
of Mr. Dean about gas escaping from the pipes and said that he had a talk 
with Mr. Dean and was told by him that lately he had not smelled any gas 
and so it seemed that if any pipe was bent, it must have been corrected. 

Larry Armstrong of Quality Tune Up, Inc., representing Canadian American 
Oil Co., and owner of the Texaco Station at 19th and Kirkham, said that the 
elimination of non-conforming use stations would result in loss of revenue 
for the City, and that customers would converge on the few remaining 
stations, causing traffic problems. He also said that the gas deliveries 
were better made in the middle of the night for the sake of convenience 
as well as for safety. 

Commissioner Matoff asked how many houses could be built if all the 
non-conforming stations were developed for housing. 

Mr. Passmore said that approximately 42-50 units could be built. 

Mr. Rieke said that he would like to have an opportunity to review 
further the matter of design of the stations and conditions to be imposed 
with the applicants. 

Commissioner Matoff moved for continuance of all seven cases, 
Commissioner Nakashima seconded, and it was carried by a vote of 6-1, with 
Commissioner Starbuck dissenting, that the matter be continued and that the 
staff review the site design with the representatives of all the seven 
stations and after taking into consideration protection of the surrounding 
residential areas and avoidance of residential conflicts with MUNI, prepare 
a resolution which would remove the termination date for each of these 
seven service stations. 

The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Mohini Mirchandani 
Acting Secretary 



SAN ■ ■ • 

PUBLIC LIBRi 

SAN FRANCISCO 

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 

SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 

THURSDAY 

OCTOBER 5, 1978 

ROOM 2 82, CITY HALL 

1:00 P.M. 

The City Planning Commission met pursu at to notice on Thursday, 
October 5, 1978, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 282, City Hall. 

PRESENT: Toby Rosenblatt, President; Ina F. Dearman, Vice- 
President; Susan J. Bierman, Thomas Matoff, Thomas 
Miller, Yoshio Nakashima, and Charles Starbuck, 
members of the City Planning Commission. 

ABSENT: None. 

The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by 
Rai Y. Okamoto, Director of Planning; R. Spencer Steele, Assistant 
Director-Implementation (Zoning Administrator); Selina Bendix, Environ 
mental Review Officer; Alec Bash, City Planning Coordinator; Jonathan 
Twichell, Planner III; Eva Levine, CETA Staff Aide; Xandra Malandra, 
Planner II; Mary Anne Miller, Planner II; and Lee Woods, Secretary. 

The press was represented by Marshall Kilduff of the San Fran- 
cisco Chronicle and Dan Borsuk of the San Francisco Progress. 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES 

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 2, 1978 and Special 
Meetings of February 14 and June 7, 1978, were approved as submitted. 

CURRENT MATTERS 

The Commission agreed to calendar a hearing on the Neiman-Marcus 
Environmental Impact Report on November 14, 1978 and a hearing on the 
Levi Square Environmental Impact Report on : jvember 21, 1978. 

CONSIDERATION OF TWO ALTERNATIVE AMENDMENTS TO CITY PLANNING CODE 
PROPOSED TO FACILITATE SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SAN FRANCISCO. 

After very brief remarks by Xandra Malandra, Planner II, R. 
Spencer Steele, Zoning Administrator, said that what he would recom- 
mend was something of a combination of permitted obstructions and an 
exemption procedure. The exemption procedure would probably be best, 
he said, because of an anticipated small number of cases. Mr. Steele 
said, that the Zoning Administrator should review the exemptions for 
appropriateness. Appealo, he said, would be made to the Commission. 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -2- OCTOBER 5, 1978 

President Rosenblatt, with the concurrence of the Commission, 
instructed Mr. Steele to prepare his recommendations. 

CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION URGING THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF SUPER- 
VISORS TO MAKE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO CONDUCT A CITY -WIDE VACANCY 
SURVEY. 

Eva Levine, CETA Staff Aide, said that the University of Califor- 
nia at Berkeley was interested in doing the vacancy survey. They es- 
timate, she said, that it will cost $90,000. The Mayor's Office of 
Community Development is considering funding this, she said. 

Commissioner Bierman moved approval of the draft resolution, 
urging the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors to make funds available 
to conduct a City-wide vacancy survey. It was seconded by Commissioner 
Dearman and passed unanimously as City Planning Commission Resolution 
No. 8079. 

President Rosenblatt prorosed the following: 1) to write letters 
welcoming the new members of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board; 
2) to write the Mayor's Office urging that the Department be given 
priority for private sector management assistance; and 3) that the 
Commission consider, on October 12, 1978, a resolution initiating 
Discretionary Reivew for building permit applications in the RH-1 
areas of Dolores Heights. The Commission agreed. 

DR78.63 - CONSIDERATION OF DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF BUILDING 
PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 7807136 TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 
ONE-STORY BUILDING FOR A SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION 
AND A RETAIL STORE AT THE CORNER OF WEST PORTAL AND 
14TH AVENUES. 

PROPOSED NEW SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION AND RETAIL 
SHOP. 
(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1978.) 

R. Spencer Steele, Zoning Administrator, said that, based on the 
guidelines for branch banks and savings and loan associations in C-l 
and C-2 Districts, the recommendation was for Discretionary Review. 

Commissioner Starbuck moved, Commissioner Bierman seconded and it 
was carried unanimously that the matter be considered for Discretionary 
Review. 

At this time in the proceedings , Mr . Patrick Hallinan representing 
the applicants of the p-oposed reclassification at 2425 Market Street 
(ZM78.11), requested that the matter be cont-.nued to November 2, 1978. 
He said they had met with all interested parties, and there was no 
opposition . 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -3- OCTOBER 5, 1978 

Commissioner Bierman muved intent to approve continuance to 
November 2, 1978, Commissioner Dearman seconded and the motion carried 
unan:' mously . 

DR78.63 - DISCRETIONARY REIVEW OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 
NO. 7807136 TO CONSTRUCT A I„EW ONE-STORY BUILDING 
FOR A SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION AND A RETAIL STORE 
AT THE CORNER OF WEST PORTAL AND 14TH AVENUES. 
PROPOSED NEW SA'TNGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION AND RETAIL 
SHOP. 
(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1978.) 

A case report was available. It was summarized by Mary Anne 
Miller, Planner II. We recommended Discretionary Review, she said, so 
that a number of issues could be worked out in terms of conditions 
for possible approval. 

Commissioner Dearman asked if there were not guidelines and what 
were they used for. Rai Y. Okamoto, Director of Planning, said that 
because of the guidelines this proposal was being brought to the 
Commiss ion . 

Responding to Commissioner Bierman, Ross Bluen, representing 
Gibraltor Savings said that the main entrance would be from West 
Portal Avenue. 

The project architect, Reuben Fitzgerald, said that the lot was 
approximately 60 feet by 100 feet. 

Mr. Bluen said that Gibraltor had no plans to retain any banking 
function at Gibraltor's current location and said that they would 
sub-lease it . 

Polly Layor, representing the West Portal Improvement Association, 
said that the Association had agreed to the proposal because Gibraltor 
was already in the area and had agreed to provide for retail use. 

Ms. Layor said that her group wanted a letter from Gibraltor, 

agreeing that the current location would be leased only for small 

retail use. We are satisfied with parking, she said, and we agree to 
one additional sign along 14th Avenue. 

Carol Claymeyer said that Gibraltor's cooperativeness was 
appreciated . 

R. Spencer Steele, Zoning Administrator, said that the recommen- 
dation was for approval with conditions including the provision for 
one additional sign (exclusive of time and temperature signs) and the 
requirement that the current site be sub-leased for small retail use. 
Retail space is to be provided in the new facility also, he said. 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -4- OCTOBER 5, 1978 

Commissioner Bierman moved approval of staff recommendations with 
conditions, Commissioner Dearraan seconded it, and it was carried by a 
vote of 5-2, that the draft resolution be adopted as City Planning 
Commission Resolution No. 8080. (Voting yes: Commissioners Bierman, 
Dearman, Matoff, Nakashima, Rosenblatt; voting no: Commissioners Miller 
Starbuck.) 

CU78.54 - 1278 LA F - AYA STREET, EAST SIDE, 100 FEET NORTH OF 
IRVING STREET; LOT ION IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 1702. 
PROPOSAL TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE 
APPLICATION NO. CU75.7, AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY 
PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 7297 ON 
MARCH 6, 1975, TO PERMIT CONTINUATION OF EXISTING 
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY FOR 10 ELDERLY RESIDENTS, 
UNDER NEW OWNERSHIP, IN AN EXISTING R-3 (LOW-MEDIUM 
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT, PROPOSED UNDER THE 
RESIDENTIAL ZONING STUDY FOR AN RM-1 (MIXED RESIDEN- 
TIAL, LOW-DENSITY) DISTRICT. 

President Rosenblatt asked if there was any opposition. There 
was no response. The Commission agreed to waive the case report. Alec 
Bash, City Planning Coordinator, said that the recommendation was for 
approval with conditions. Commissioner Dearman moved for approval of 
the staff recommendation with conditions, Commissioner Nakashima sec- 
onded and the motion unanimously carried that the draft resolution be 
adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 8081. 

DR78.70(CU) - 1968 GREAT HIGHWAY, WEST SIDE, 112.5 FEET NORTH 

OF PACHECO STREET; LOT 9 IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 2086. 
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN LIEU OF CONDITIONAL USE 
TO PERMIT EXPANSION OF A DWELLING BY ADDITION OF 
A SECOND AND THIRD UNIT ON A LOT WITH A TOTAL AREA 
OF 5,023 SQUARE FEET, WHEN 1,500 SQUARE FEET IS 
REQUIRED PER DWELLING UNIT, IN AN EXISTING R-3 
(LCW-MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT. 
PROPOSED UNDER THE RESI13NTIAL ZONING STUDY FOR 
AN RH-2 (HOUSE, TWO-FAMILY) DISTRICT. 

A case report was available. It was summarized by Alec Bash, City 
Planning Coordinator. 

Elaine Grimm, a resident at 1924 Great Highway, said that she 
favored the proposal but wanted no additional units beyond those 
proposed . 

R. Spencer Steele, Zoning Administrator, said that three (3) units 
were the maximum for the lot and that the Zoning Administrator could 
not accept an application to permit more than three (3) units. The 
recommendation is for approval with conditions, he said. 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF TK£ REGULAR MEETING 5- OCTOBER 5, 1978 

Commissioner Dearman moved motion of intent to approve, subject 
to review of final environmental evaluation and continuation to Octo- 
ber 19, 1978. Commissioner Nakashima seconded the motion and it car- 
ried unanimously. 

DR78.71(CU) - 530 CONGO STREET, NORTH SIDE, APPROXIMATELY 111 

FEET NORTH OF MANGELS STREET; LOT 19 IN ASSESSOR'S 
BLOCK 6763. 

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN LIEU OF CONDITIONAL USE TO 
PERMIT EXPANSION OF A DWELLING BY ADDITION OF 
SECOND UNIT ON A LOT WITH TOTAL AREA OF 6,800 
SQUARE FEET WHEN 3,000 SQUARE FEET IS REQUIRED PER 
DWELLING UNIT, IN AN EXISTING R- 1 (ONE-FAMILY 
RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT, PROPOSED UNDER THE RESID- 
ENTIAL ZONING STUDY FOR AN RH-1 (HOUSE, ONE-FAMILY) 
DISTRICT. 

The Commission agreed to waive the case report. Alec Bash, City 
Planning Coordinator, said that the Department had received one (1) 
letter of opposition. It related to density, he said. 

Mr. Bash said that the staff recommendation was for approval with 
conditions . 

Commissioner Miller moved approval with conditions, Commissioner 
Bierman seconded and it was carried by a vote of 5-2, that the draft 
resolution be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 8082. 
(Voting Yes: Commissioners Bierman, Matoff, Miller, Nakashima, Rosen- 
blatt; voting no: Commissioners Dearman, Starbuck.) 

At this point in the proceedings, the Commission recessed and 
reconvened at 3:30 p.m. 

ZM78.11 - 2425 MARKET STREET, BEGINNING 7.646 FEET NORTHEAST OF 
COLLINGWOOD STREET; LOTS 29 AND 32 IN ASSESSOR'S 
BLOCK 2647. 

PROPOSAL TO CHANGE ZONING USE DISTRICT FROM AN R-4 
(HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) TO A C-2 (COMMUN- 
ITY BUSINESS) DISTRICT, CURRENTLY PROPOSED UNDER THE 
RESIDENTIAL ZONING STUDY FOR AN RH-3 (HOUSE, THREE- 
FAMILY) DISTRICT. 
(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1978.) 

President Rosenblatt indicated that Patrick Hallinan, representing 
the applicant, had requested a continuance to November 2, 1978. 

C. N. Klitgaard, a property owner in the immediate area, said that 
he opposed any continuance. We'd like to have this thing settled, he 
said . 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -6- OCTOBER 5, 1978 

Commissioner Bierman said that in view of the City Attorney's re- 
view of a number of legal questions related to this matter, she belie- 
ved that Commission action was inappropriate at this time. 

It was moved by Commissioner Matoff to continue to November 2, 
1978, seconded by Commissioner Nakashima and passed unanimously. 

ZM78.12 - 4127-4147 - 19TH STREET, SOUTH SIDE FROM COLLINGWOOD 
STREET, 143 FEET EASTERLY; LOTS 31, 32, 33, 34 AND 35 
IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 2696. 

PROPOSAL FOR RECLASSIFICATION FROM AN R-3 (LOW-MEDIUM 
DENSITY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT TO A C-2 (COM- 
MUNITY BUSINESS) DISTRICT, "'JRRENTLY PROPOSED UNDER 
THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING STUDY FOR AN RH-3 (HOUSE, 
THREE-FAMILY) DISTRICT. 

A case report was available. It was summarized by Alec Bash, City 
Planning Coordinator. Mr. Bash said that there was some correspondence 
in opposition and some, mainly from property owners, in favor of the 
proposal. There is in the file, he said, a letter from a nearby pro- 
perty owner who requests commercial zoning, for his property, if other 
properties are zoned commercial. 

Mr. Bash said that the preliminary recommendation was for disap- 
proval. This, he said, is based primarily on the Residence Element of 
the Master Plan, which stresses the maintenance of the residential 
housing stock of the city. 

Stressing that the commercial uses, already existent in the area 
of the proposed reclassification, were indeed neighborhood serving and 
that there were virtually no additional properties which could be con- 
sidered for commercial designation, the following people spoke in favor 
of the reclassification proposal: 

1. Issac Scherin, resident at 4143 - 19th Street. 

2. Jose Flores, an area resident. 

3. Boyd Schwart?, owner of Lot 31 in Assessor's Block 2696. 

4. Michelle Traufaut, director of the San Francisco Repertory 
Company located in Lot 31 of Assessor's Block 2696. 

5. Rachel Ross, resident at 4149 - 19th Street. 

6. Lorraine Borochet, a student at the San Francisco Repertory 
Company . 

7. Dave Tussler, a resident at 4129 - 19th Street. 

8. Arnie Charles, owner at 602 Castro Street. 

R. Spencer Steele, Zoning Administrator, said that, after hearing 
the testimony, it would appear that R-3-C or RC-1 might be a more ap- 
propriate use. He noted that the RC-1 would permit, by a conditional 
use authorization, a commercial use on a floor above the ground floor. 
He noted also that the parking requirements of residential districts 
would remain in effect. 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -7- OCTOBER 5, 1978 

Mr. Steele said that the staff recommendation was for approval of 
the RC-1 designation. 

Commissioner Bierman moved to direct staff to prepare a resolu- 
tion to initiate the RC-1 for those properties included in the appli- 
cation and that the matter be continued to October 12, 1978. Commis- 
sioner Nakashima seconded and the motion was carried by a vote of 5-2. 
(Voting yes: Commissioners Bierman, Dearman, Matoff, Nakashima, 
Rosenblatt; voting no: Commissioners Miller, Starbuck.) 

Arnie Charles, a property owner at 602 Castro Street, asked if 
his property was included. 

Commissioner Bierman said that her motion related to only what 
was included in the application. 

Mr. Bash said that because of the requirements for formal notice > 
it had not been possible to include Mr. Charles' property in the ap- 
plication. I invited him to this meeting, Mr. Bash said, so that he 
might get a sense of the Commission's thinking with resject to this 
matter . 

CU78.25 - 4900-4940 MISSION STREET; LOTS 8 AND 11 IN ASSESSOR'S 
BLOCK 6959. 

PROPOSAL TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE 
AUTHORIZATION BY THE COMMISSION UNDER RESOLUTION NO. 
3774 IN 1950, CONCERNING SAFEWAY SUPERMARKET. 
(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF JULY 27, 1978.) 

At this time in the proceedings, President Rosenblatt said that 
the applicant, in the matter of 4900-4940 Mission Street (CU78.25), 
had requested a continuance to November 2, 1978. He asked if there 
was anyone who objected. There was no response. 

Commissioner Nakashima moved to continue to November 2, 1978, 
Commissioner Dearman seconded and it passed unanimously. 

APPEAL N-JUDAH MUNI PROJECT, NEGATIVE DECLARATION. 
(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1978.) 

Selina Bendix, Environmental Review Officer, introduced the matter 
to the Commission. The issues, she said, are clearly represented in 
a letter from Romano Surian to Rai Okamoto, dated July 19, 1978 and 
a letter from Selina Bendix to Romano Suriar. . dated August 10, 1978. 

Joe Balanessi, an attorney, represented the San Francisco Pacific 
Motel. Mr. Balanessi provided the Commission with a letter from the 
Sunset Ocean Beach Committee. Based on traffic safety and land use 
considerations, the committee opposed the proposal, he said. 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -8- OCTOBER 5, 1978 

Mr. Balanessi said that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 
should be required because the project would result in significant 
negative impacts on the environment. There is no adequate discussion 
of these impacts in the Environmental Evaluation (EE) , he said. 

Asserting that an EIR should be required for adequate discussion 
of possible negative impacts, including visual quality and pedestrian 
and vehicular conflicts, the following people spoke: 

1. Mrs. Romano Surian, representing the San Francisco Pacifica 
Motel . 

2. Mr. Rod Roderick, representing the Tides End Community 
Association . 

3. Ms. Frances Larkin, representing the Tides End Community 
Association . 

4. Elaine Grimm, representing the Tides End Community Associatior 

Mr. Dave Fulton represented the Wastewscer Management Program. 

Mr. Reno Bel and Mr. Lynn Pio represented the Project Sponsor, 
the San Francisco Municipal Railway. Mr. Bei said that the proposal 
had emerged from the Tides End Community Assd iation's request that 
the MUNI do something about getting its cars out of the middle of 
Judah Street. 

President Rosenblatt indicated that it was his belief that there 
was not enough substantial evidence to indicate that an EIR was re- 
quired. There is the issue, though, he said, of the ultimate neces- 
sity of the project. 

Commissioner Bierman said that she thought that the EE should 

make more explicit reference to questions related to landscaping, the 

overhead lines and poles and the possible pedestrian and vehicular 
conflicts . 

At approximately 5:40 p.m., Commissioner Dearman left the 
meeting. At approximately 6:00 p.m., President Rosenblatt lef t the 
meeting, and Commissioner Starbuek assumed the responsibility of 
Acting President. 

Selina Bendix said that the ultimate issue was the private auto 
and that it was the largest environmental problem in the city. 

R. Spencer Steele, Zoning Administrator, said that everything 
which had'been discussed during the hearing, had * e *°/»£ U ^ n £ 8 ^ 
environmental evaluation. Mr. Steele recommended that the Commission 
uphold the staff with respect to its determination that an EIR is not 
required. He said that the staff would return to the Commission for 
its review an amended environmental evaluation which would deal more 
explicitly with Commissioner Bierman's concerns. 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -9- OCTOBER 5, 1978 

Commissioner Miller moved the staff recommendation, Commissioner 
Nakashima seconded and it was passed unanimously that the draft 
resolution be adopted as City Planning Commission Resolution No. 8083 

The meeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lee Wood? 
Secretary 



c 

F C LIBRARY 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, November 9, 1978. 

The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, November 9, 
1978, at 1:00 p.m. in Room 282, City Hall. 

PRESENT: Toby Rosenblatt, President; Ina F. Dearman, Vice-President; 
Susan J. Biermen, Tom Matoff , Tom Miller, Yoshio Nakashima 
and Charles Starbuck* members of the City Planning Commission. 

ABSENT: None. 

The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Rai Y. Oka- 

moto, Director of Planning; Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning); Alec Bash, City 

Planning Coordinator; Barbara Sahm, Assistant Environmental Review Officer; Mary 

Anne Miller, Planner II; Gerald Owyang, Staff Assistant III; and Lee Woods, Jr., 
Secretary. 

Jerry Adams represented the San Francisco Examiner and Dan B»rsuk represented 
the San Francisco Progress. 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES 

It was moved by Commissioner Dearman, seconded by Commissioner iJakashima 
and carried Unanimously that the minutes cf the Regular Te^tinj of August; 24. 
1978, be approved as» submitted. (Absent: Commissioner Starbuck) 

CURRENT MATTERS 

With respect to the "diving tower" of the North Point Pier Project, Robert 
Passmore, Planner V (Zoning), said that one possible interpretation of the City 
Planning Code could mean that the tower was exempt from any requirement for a 
permit. Mr. Passmore said that the Commission could either review the tcwer in 
terms «f the Conditional Use or permit the staff to interpret the Code with 
respect to the tower. 

Commissioner Bierman said that she did not wish to be a party to any approval 
of the tower. It's too high, she said. 

RS78.59 - PUBLIC HEARING ON TENTATIVE MAP FOR A 6-UNIT CONDOMINIUM 
CONVERSION SUBDIVISION AT 2105 BUCHANAN STREET: LOT 14 IN 
ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 637. 

A case report was available. It was summarized by Alec Bash, City Planning 
Coordinator. Mr. Bash said that the staff recommendation for approval with 
conditions. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -2- NOVEMBER 9, 1978 

Thomas LeLaine, representing the subdivider said that the area was suitable 
for additional conversions because there were conversions there now. 

Alan Weitzel, a resident of the area, said that he favored the conversion. 

Commissioner Bierman asked if most new multi-family residential construction 
was of condominium as opposed to rental housing. Robert Passmore, Planner V 
(Zoning), said that he could not answer the question. 

Commissioner Dearman asked if the building had undergone any recent renovation, 
Mr. Bash said that the building would have to conform to code standards. 

Commissioner Miller moved approval of the staff recommendation. The motion 
died for lack of a second. 

Commissioner Dearman moved disapproval of the application. Commissioner 
Bierman seconded the motion. She noted that the Commission had approved much new 
condominium construction and that this was consistent with the Master Plan policy 
related to ownership opportunities. 

The motion for disapproval, passed by a vote of 4-2, and was adapted as City 
Planning Commission Resolution No. 8106. (Voting yes: Commissioner Bierman, 
Dearman, Matoff, Nakashima; Voting no: Commissioners Miller, Rosenblatt.) 
(Absent: Commissioner Starbuck.) 

RS78.65 - PUBLIC HEARING ON TENTATIVE MAP FOR A 10-UNIT CONDOMINIUM 
CONVERSION SUBDIVISION AT 2155 BUCHANAN STREET; LOT l IN 
ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 637. 

A case report was available. It was summarized by Alec Bash, City Planning 
Coordinator. Mr. Bash said that one unit in the building was a part of the City's 
moderate-income housing stock. The staff recommendation, Mr. Bash said was for 
approval with conditions. 

A tenant of the building, Eian Tiana, said that purchase of a unit was a 
great opportunity and that he favored the conversion. 

The subdivider, Robert Mills, said that nine of the ten tenants had expressed 
interest in purchasing. Mr. Mills submitted a written statement, which read as 
follows : 

"I- DESCRIPTION 

"The property, 2155 Buchanan, is a ten-unit apartment building located 
in the top of the Pacific Heights district:. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -3- NOVEMBER 9, 1978 

•'II- RENTS 

"Excluding the moderate income basement unit (Number 10 at current 
rent of $300.00/mo.) a.nd the smaller one-bedroom unit (Number 1 at rent of 
$385.00/mo.) the monthly rent as of November 1, 1978, for the remaining 
eight 2-bedroom units averages $523.13 per month. This does not include 
the extra garage rental of $50.00 per month. The scheduled monthly rental 
threshold for luxury 2-bedroom units as promulgated by the Planning Depart- 
ment is $431.00. Thus, the average rental, exclusive of garages, at 2155 
Buchanan for the 2-bedroom units is 21.737o above luxury threshold. 

"III- PROVISIONS FOR CURRENT TENANTS 

"The subdivider has met with all available tenants (9 out of 10 units), 
but has been unable to contact the occupant of unit 7. 

"In this regard, the subdivider is pleased to report that all tenants 
are interested in purchasing '. However, in the event that any tenant does 
not elect to purchase, he will be given the following options: 

"(1) Coordination : Some prospective buyers may not wish to occupy 
the unit they purchase. Therefore, if any tenant elects not to purchase 
his unit, and wishes to remain in the building, every effort will be made 
to sell his unit to a buyer who does not want immediate occupancy. 

"Likewise, in the event any tenant elects not to purchase, and wishes 
to relocate, the subdivider will attempt to sell that unit to a buyer who 
wants immediate possession. In this manner the tenant can receive the full 
relocation allowance. 

"(2) First Right Refusal, 10% Discount : For a period of 60 days the 
tenants of each unit will be given a non-transferable right of first refusal 
to purchase their apartment at a ten per cent (107o) discount off the sales 
price offered the general public. 

"(3) Notice : Each tenant will be given 120-days' notice before being 
asked to vacate. This notice shall not be given prior to the recordation 
of the final map. 

"(4) Relocation Allowance : The tenants of any unit displaced by a sale 
shall be entitled to a $2,000.00 cash relocation allowance. Any tenant moving 
from 2155 Buchanan subsequent to the recordation of the final map shall re- 
ceive a $500.00 relocation allowance even if not displaced by sale. 

IV- SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

"The subdivider has fully cooperated with the Planning staff by accepting 
moderate income price ceilings for the basement unit and a characterization 
of that unit as a 1-bedroom instead of a 2-bedroom, even though it is cur- 
rently rented as a 2-bedroom, and hasr the potential for expansion into a 3 
or 4-bedroom unit by relatively inexpensive renovation. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -4- NOVEMBER 9, 1978 

! 'The subdivider hss also cooperated by voluntarily providing for notice 
and relocation provisions as set forth above. 

"The Planning staff has recommended approval of this project. 

"V- SUPPORT OF TENANTS 

"One hundred per cent (107») of the current tenants contacted at 2155 
Buchanan have signed a written statement in support of this conversion." 

With respect to Mr. Mills' written statement, Commissioner Starbuck said 
that he thought that there were errors in "Purchase Analysis" sections IIJ and 
IIK. He suggested that the computations be checked. 

Mr. Mills said that the area of the proposed conversion was inhabited by 
people who might be called typical condominium buyers. There are in this area 
and in San Francisco many people with the means to purchase, but there are limited 
lownership opportunities, he said. 

Commissioner Starbuck said that the problem was that there was virtually no 
new rental housing construction and that conversions were a literal reduction in 
the rental stock. 

Michael Crall said that he favored the proposal and intended to buy. 

Alan Weitzel, a resident owner of the immediate area, said that conversion 
was good and that he favored the proposal. 

Commissioner Bierman said that no one disputed the value of ownership but 
that people had to rent. 

With respect to rental housing vs. condominium ownership, Commissioner Star- 
buck said that conversion was a one-way process, that it was virtually impossible 
to return a converted building back to rental status. There are many people whc 
work and reside in the City who cannot afford a condominium, he said. 

Mr. Bash said that he thought that there were errors in the "Purchase 
Analysis" of Mr. Mills. 

Commissioner Starbuck moved disapproval of the application. It was seconded 
by Commissioner Dearman and passed by a vote of 5-2. (Voting Yes: Commissioners 
Bierman, Dearman, Matoff, Nakashima, Starbuck; voting No: Commissioners Miller 
and Rosenblatt.) 

RS78.62 - PUBLIC HEARING ON TENTATIVE MAP FOR A 12-UNIT CONDOMINIUM 

CONVERSION SUBDIVISION AT 2232 NORTH POINT STREET; LOT 2 IN 
ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 919. 

A case report was available. It was summarized by Alec Bash, City Planning 
Coordinator. Mr. Bash indicated that the subdivider had advised staff that he 
would not accept mode rate -income sales prices for any of the units. The staff 
recommendation/, .MS? Ba.h said, is for disapproval. 

The only person wiahing to testify, Mrs. Wilson, a tenant of the building, 
said that the application should be disapproved. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -5- NOVEMBER 9, 1978 

Commissioner Dearman moveed for disapproval. It was seconded by Commissioner 
Nakashima and passed unanimously as City Planning Resolution No. 8101. 

RS78.61 - PUBLIC HEARING ON TENTATIVE MAP FOR A 6-UNIT CONDOMINIUM 
CONVERSION SUBDIVISION AT 1700-10 VALLEJO STREET; NORTH- 
WEST CORNER AT FRANKLIN STREET; LOT 9 IN ASSESSOR'S 
BLOCK 552. 

A case report was available. It was summarized by Alec Bash, City Planning 
Coordinator. Mr. Bash said that the staff recommendation was for approval with 
conditions . 

Larry Kans, representing the subdivider, said that the building had always 
been a problem in terms of retaining long-term tenants. Family use is the only 
possibly successful way to market the building, he said. 

Mr. Kans said that the building would easily lend itself to conversion. Each 
unit is approximately 2000 square feet, and each has a separate entrance, he said. 

Commissioner Starbuck asked if there was any parking. Mr. Kans said no. 

DeWitt Hart said that the building had a problemmatic rental history and that 
he favored conversion. 

Commissioner Miller moved the staff recommendation for approval. The motion 
died for lack fo a seornd. 

Commissioner Bierman moved disapproval of the application. It was seconded 
by Commissioner Starbuck and passed by a vote of 5-2 and was adapted as City Plan- 
ning Commission Resolution No. 8109. (Voting Yes: Commissioners Bierman, Dearman, 
Matoff, Nakashima, Starbuck; Voting No: Commissioners Miller and Rosenblatt.) 

At the request of President Rosenblatt, Mr. Bash described, to the audience, 
the appeal procedures related to condominium conversion subdivision 

EE75.472 - PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR 
HOTEL AT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA MEDICAL CENTER, SOTTTH- 
WEST CORNER OF HILLWAY AVENUE AND CARL STREET; LOTS 22 
THROUGH 24 AND 35 THROUGH 45 IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 1275. 

The following persons commented on the draft Envrionmental Impact Report: 

1. John D. Bardis, President of the Inner-Sunset Action Committee. 

2. Anna Dardin, Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council. 

3. Sue Hestor, San Francisco Tomorrow. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -6- NOVEMBER 9, 1978 

4. Alan Chalmers, Inner-Sunset Action Committee. 

5. Doug Engman, concerned citizen. 

6. E. R. M. Ekblad, concerned citizen. 

7. Michael Merzenich, concerned citizen. 

8. V. Licko, concerned citizen. 

9. Ed Dunn, concerned citizen. 

10. James McGinnis, representative of the applicant. 

11. J. Alfred Rider, project sponsor. 

At the conclusion of the public testimony, the Director of Planning, Rai Y. 
Okamoto, recommended that the public hearing on the draft Environmental Impact 
Report be closed. We would expect to calender a certification hearing and a 
conditional use hearing in early December, he said. 

Commissioner Starbuck moved to close the public hearing. It was seconded by 
Commissioner Nakashima and was passed unanimously. 

NOTE. A certified court reporter was present and a transcription is available 
for reference purposes. A standard tape cassette recording of the proceedings is 
also available in the files of the Department of City Planning for public listen- 
ing or transcription. 

CU78.55 - REQUEST TOR AUTHORIZATION OF CONDITIONAL USE AT PIER 23, 
THE EMBARCADERO AT THE FOOT OF GREENWICH AND FRONT 
STREETS; FOR EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING BAR AND RESTAURANT 
FROM 1,423 TO 3,462 SQUARE FEET, A NON-MARITIME USE IN 
THE NORTHERN WATERFRONT SPECIAL USE DISTRICT NO. 1, IN 
AN M-l (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT. 
(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 30, 1978) 

Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning), indicated that the applicant was re- 
questing additional time. He recommended that the matter be continued to 
November 30, 1978. 

Commissioner Matoff moved that the matter be continued to November 30, 1978. 
It was seconded by Commissioner Nakashima and passed unanimously. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -7- NOVEMBER 9, 1978 

RS78.58 - 407 SANCHEZ STREET, EAST SIDE BETWEEN 17TH AND DORLAND STREETS; 
LOT 51 IN ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 3580. 

JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ON A 
TENTATIVE MAP FOR A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY 
INTO 58 UNITS. 
(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 1978.) 

Alec Bash, City Planning Coordinator, noted that this was a joint public 
hearing with the Department of Public Works. He introduced George Woo, re- 
pr3senting the Department of Public Works. 

Mr. Bash said that the recommendation was for approval. With respect to 
the Subdivision Code requirement that ten percent of the units be made available 
for low and moderate-income occupancy, Mr. Bash said that, because of extenuating 
circumstances, the staff was recommending a period of four months. 

At the suggestion of Commissioner Dearman, it was agreed by the Commission, 
applicant and staff, that two studies, two one-bedroom and two two-bedroom units 
would be made available for the four-month period. 

Commissioner Dearman moved for approval of the staff recommendation. It was 
seconded by Commissioner Starbuck and passed unanimously as City Planning Resolu- 
tion #8110. 

DR78.72 - DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 

NO. 7808900 TO EXPAND THE OFFICES OF AN EXISTING SAVINGS 
AND LOAN ASSOCIATION AND BUILD A DWELLING UNIT FOR THE 
PROPERTY OWNER ON THE SECOND STORY AT 1024 GRANT AVENUE, 
BETWEEN JACKSON AND PACIFIC STREETS, LOT 14 IN ASSESSOR'S 
BLOCK 177. 
(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 12, 1978.) 

A case report was available. It was summarized by Mary Anne Miller, Planner 
II, Ernest Piccone represented the applicant, San Francisco Federal Savings. 

Mr. Piccone said that the applicant would propose to provide space, for 
community purposes, in the basement of its proposed facility. The sDace would 
have elevator access and would rent at the rate of twenty-five cents per square 
foot per month, he said. 

Al Woo, of the Chinatown Community Housing Corporation, said that he would 
recommend disapproval of the proposal. Because that space would crdinarily rent 
for twenty-five cents per square foot, they are offering nothing. 

Jennie Lew, of the Chinatown Neighborhood Resource Center, also recommended 
disapproval. They will displace a restaurant with seven employees. They are 
proposing tc provide no new teller space but only additional customer waiting 
space. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -8- NOVEMBER 9, 1978 

Mr. Piccone said the bank's accounts had declined because of poor service. 
Our 25,000 customers need and deserve a better facility, he said. Mr. Piccone 
stressed that the bank had always been conscious of its responsibilities to the 
community. Over the years, he said, we've loaned the community 55 million dollars 
and for years we have operated a newcomers facility in Chinatown, he said. 

Mr. Woo said that the decline in accounts could probably be traced to the 
increase in the number of financial facilities in the area. 

Mr. Piccone said that the bank's wish to expand or upgrade it's facility 
should be understood in the context that it should have expanded ten years earlier. 

The Director of Planning, Rai Y. Okamoto, indicated that the staff had no 
recommendation but wanted a continuance in the belief that conflicts could be 
resolved . 

Commissioner Starbuck said that there was no reason to continue. He moved 
disapproval saying that the crucial issue was the proliferation of savings and 
loans and the extreme saturation of the Chinatown area. The motion was seconded 
by Commissioner Dearman. 

Commissioner Miller said that he would have to vote against the motion. I'd 
like one more crack at a solution, he said. 

The motion for disapproval passed by a vote of 6-1 as City Planning Resolu- 
tion #8111. (Voting Yes: Commissioners Bierman, Dearman, Matoff, Nakashima, 
Rosenblatt and Starbuck; Voting No: Commissioner Miller.) 

At this time, Commissioner Starbuck left the Meeting room. 

REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE AUTHORIZATION FOR DREW COLLEGE PREPARATORY 
SCHOOL AND JOHN F. KENNEDY UNIVERSITY AT 2518 JACKSON STREET; LOT 6 IN 
ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 586. 

In summarizing the issue before the Commission, Robert Passmore, Planner V 
(Zoning) , said that Drew School had asked to take over the Lincoln University 
site. The staff thought that Drew's use was very similar to Lincoln's and that 
Drew's request was appropriate. The problem, Mr. Passmore said, is that there 
is an automatic conditional use but no conditions. He said that the City Attorn- 
ey's office Lad indicated that the City Planning Commission could initiate a 
separate conditional use hearing and could establish conditions subject to ap- 
peal to the Board of Supervisors. 

Mr. Passmore said that the staff was recommending this kind of procedure 
and that this hearing was an occasion to get a sense of what both sides would 
want. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -9- NOVEMBER 9, 1978 

Robert Cole, Principal of Drew School, described Drew's program and said chat 
Drew had not brought any problems to the neighborhood. 

Deborah Kirshman, Director of Museum Studies at Drew School and John F. 
Kennedy University, described the Museum Studies course, including the student 
body, curriculum and class schedules. She said that every effort had been made 
to make the operation as harmonious with the neighborhood as possible. 

John Schmidel, of the Pacific Heights Resident Association said that one 
condition might be that the neighborhood would be consulted on exterior color 
of the building. 

John Triana, a resident at 2510 Jackson, said that the concern was to keep 
the neighbohood residential. 

Mr. Passmore said that the recommendation was to initiate the conditional 
use hearing for which a resolution containing conditions would be drafted 

The recommendation was moved by Commissioner Matoff, seconded by Commissioner 
Nakashima and it passed unanimously. Vote 6-0. Absent Commissioner Starbuck. 

Meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. 



Respectfully submitted, 



Lee Woods, Jr, 
Secretary 



SAN 

p C LIBRARY 



SAN FRANC I CO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



Minutes of the Special Meeting held Tuesday, November 14, 1978. 

The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Tufsday, Ncvcmber 14, 
1978, at 2:30 p.m., in the Lurie Room, Main Library. 

PRESENT: Toby Rosenblatt, President; Susan J. Bierman, Thomas Matoff, Thomas 
Miller, Yoshio Nakashima, Charles Starbuck, members of the City 
Planning Commission. 

ABSENT: Ina F. Dearman, Vice-President, City Planning Commission. 

The staff " the Department of City Planning was represented by Rai Y. Okamoto, 
Director of Planning; Selina Bendix, Environmental Review Officer; Charles Gill, 
City Planning Coordinator; Barbara Sahm, Assistant Environmental Review Officer; 
and Lee Woods, Secretary. 

Gerald Adams represented the San Francisco Examiner and Dan Borsuk represented 
the San Francisco Progress. 

EE77.257 - GEARY AND STOCKTON STREETS, SOUTHEAST CORNER; LOTS 14 AND 15 IN 
ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 313. 

PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 
PROPOSED NEIMAN-MARCUS DEPARTMENT STORE; *sS*JFUCTICN CF \ RETAIL 
STORE WITH FOUR FLOORS ABOVE GRADE AND ONE FLOOR BELOW GRADE, 
APPROXIMATELY 175,000 SQUARE FEET OF AREA INCORPORATING THE 
ROTUNDA AND DOME -OF THE CITY OF PARIS BUILDING, AFTER DEMOLITION 
OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF PARIS BUILDING AND OF THE 133- 
157 GEARY STREET BUILDING. 



Those who commented on the draft Environmental Impact Report included: 

1. G.B. Piatt, President of Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. 

2. Bill Sugaya, Director of the Western Regional Office of the National 
Trust for Historic Preservation. 

3. Robert Berner, Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage. 

4. Randolph Delahanty, Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage. 

5. Earl Moss, Victorian Alliance. 

6. Harold Major, Citizen's Committee to Save the City of Paris. 

7. Leslie Emmington, Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission. 

8. Ann Bloomfield, Concerned Citizen. 

9. John Maher, Concerned Citizen. 



MINUTES OF THE SPEfc'i \L MEETING -2- NOVEMBER 14, 1978 

10. B. Kirshen Gaum, Pacific Heights Residents Association. 

11. F. Klussman, President of San Francisco Beautiful. 

12. Richard McCrea, Concerned Citizen. 

13. Albert Zincaine, Concerned Citizen. 

14. Robert Lestie, Shopping Center Developer. 

The Special Meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. and reconvened at 7:05 p.m. t in Room 
282, City Hall. Present were Commissioners Bierman, Katoff, Miller, Nakashima, 
Rosenblatt. 

Speakers in the evening session included the following: 

1. Richard Morton, Chamber of Commerce. 

2. Thomas Fitzgerald and Vicki Wagner, Consulting Engineers. 

3. James Keefer, Mission Planning Council. 

4. Gerta Folder, Haight Ashbury Improvement Association. 

5. David Wasserman, Concerned Citizen. 

6. Windell Haywood, Concerned Citizen. 

7. Bill Eisen, Park Presidio Neighborhood Association. 

8. Bradford Paul, National Trust for Historic Preservation. 

9. Dean Beck, Senior Vice President of Carter Hawley Hale Stores. 

10. Roger Boyer, Telegraph Hill Dwellers. 

11. Jean Kordum, San Francisco Tomorrow. 

12. I-ggy Lang, Californians for Preservation Action. 

13. Stewart Morton, Concerned Citizen. 

14. John Johnson, Citizen's Committee to Save the City of Paris. 

15. Harold Major, Citizen's Committee to Save the City of Paris. 

16. Rhoda Parks, Concerned Citizen. 

17. Joseph Friedman, Concerned Citizen. 

18. Jerry Barclay, Concerned Citizen. 

19. Dick Overstreet, Concerned Citizen. 

20. John Bergee, Johnson and Burger Architects. 

21. Les Robertson, Structural Engineer. 

22. Willie Brown, Attorney representing the Project Sponsor. 

At the conclusion of the public testimony, President Rosenblatt asked if there 
was any action from the Commission. Commissioner Miller moved that the public 
hearing be closed. It was seconded by Commissioner Nakashima and passed unanimously. 

President Rosenblatt indicated that the Commission expected to •- '" 3ndar a 
certification hearing in mid -December . 

A certified court reporter was present at the hearing and a transcript of the 
proceedings as well as a standard tape cassette recording of the proceedings are 
available at the files of Department of City Planning for reference purposes. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lee Woods 
Secretary 



F 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION 



^ Minutes of the Regular Meeting held Thursday, November 16, 1978. 

The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Thursday, November 16, 
1978, at 1:30 p.m., in Room 282, City Hall. 

PRESENT: Toby Rosenblatt, President; Ina F. Dearman, Vice-President; Susan J. 
Bierman, Thomas Matoff, Tbomas Miller, Yoshio Nakashima, and 
Charles Starbuck, members of the City Planning Commission. 

ABSENT: None. 

The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by Rai Y. Okamoto, 
Director of Planning; George Williams, Assistant Director-Plans and Programs; 
Robert Passmore, Planner V (Zoning); Charles Gill, City Planning Coordinator; Wayne 
Rieke, Planner IV (Zoning); Nathaniel Taylor Planner II; Alec Bash, City Planning 
Coordinator; and Lee Woods, Secretary. 

The press was represented by Dan Borsuk of the San Francisco Progress ; 
Gerald Adams of the San Francisco Examiner and Marshall Kilduff of the San Francisco 
Chronicle. 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES 

It was moved by Commissioner Dearman, seconded by Commissioner Bierman and 
carried unanimously that the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 23, 1978, be 
approved with corrections and that the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 23, 
1978, be approved as submitted. (Absent: Commissioners Matoff and Miller.) 

CURRENT MATTERS 

Rai Y. Okamoto, Director of Planning, introduced a resolution which authorized 
the Director of Planning, to use 302 Planning Grant funds, to enter into a Work 
Study Agreement with Antioch College and Howard Humphrey. 

Commissioner Bierman moved approval of the draft resolution. The motion was 
seconded by Commissioner Nakashima and passed unanimously and was adopted as City 
Planning Commission Resolution Mo. 8112. (Absent: Commissioners Matoff, Miller.) 

Commissioner Starbuck requested that the transportation staff provide to the 
Commission a copy of the final Board of Supervisors' resolution on the proposed 
1-280 ramp at 4th Street. 

Commissioner 5 tarbuck indicated that the Zoning Administrator would hear the 
Tishman Variance Applicantion for 525 Market Street on November 22, 1978. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -2- NOVEMBER 16, 1978 

Commissioner Starbuck requested the proposed "solar energy" amendments to the 
City Planning Code, be calendared for November 30, 1978. In addition, he requested 
that the proposed Master Plan Policies and Objectives on Energy Conservation be 
calendared for November 30, 1978. 

With respect to the North Point Pier Project, Commissioner Starbuck said that 
the Commission had had major problems in terms of Environmental Review and the 
Conditional Use process. We had problems in the following areas, he said: 

1. Plans - The "fast track" procedure; 2. Neighborhood Organizations - Coop- 
eration; 3. Observation Tower - Height Limit; 4. Height Limit - Garage & 
Pier; 5. Bulk Limits - Carousel Bldg.; 6. Breakwater - (Floating) Tires 
& Styro Foam; 7. View Corridors Not Maintained; 8. Maintenance Bldg. 
(200' X 50') (Storage); 9. Diving Tower & Noise Problem; 10. Pedestrian 
Bridge & Pedestrian Environment; 11. Park - Quality & Size (40% landscaping) 
12. Facade Treatment; 13. Traffic Between Bldg. & Pier; 14. Stockton Street 
View Corridor. 

President Rosenblatt said that he did not agree that all of those areas were 
problems. All were not in our potential to control, he said. 

President Rosenblatt asked the Director to verify the height of the North 
Point Pier Garage and the percentage of landscaped area in the project park. 

PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS HOSPITALS IN SAN FRANCISCO AND THE CURRENT STATUS 
OF HOSPITAL PLANNING IN SAN FRANCISCO. IN THE CONTEXT OF A PLANNING PROCESS 
FOR THE FUTURE, THE COMMISSION WOULD ANTICIPATE SOME DISCUSSION OF THE 
POSSIBILITY FOR COORDINATED EFFORTS INCLUDING MERGERS AND SHARED FACILITIES 
AND /OR SERVICES. 

President Rosenblatt thanked those who had come to participate in the discus- 
sion. He stressed that the Commission was more interested in discussion of a 
broad process for cooperative planning than in a discussion of matters specific 
to particular hospitals. 

Thomas Moore represented the West Bay Health Systems Agency (HSA) . He said 
that the primary mission of his agency was to review and make recommendations on 
proposed capital improvements. Mr. Moore said that the major problem in the West 
Bay service area was a surplus of beds. The costs of empty beds are borne by 
those occupied, he said. Mr. Moore stressed the need for a plan for the three 
county service area. 

Ross Stromberg represented the West Bay Hospital Conference. Mr. Stromberg 
said that the conference was interested in the delivery of quality health care 
services without duplication of effort. Mr. Stromberg said that it was appropriate 
for the Commission to seek the comment of the HSA in the context of land use and 
the institutional Master Plan. We don't think it appropriate that an institution 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -3- NOVEMBER 16, 1978 

be reheard by you in terms of a certificate of need review. The HSA should prop- 
erly comment on those issues which are properly before you, he said. 

Mr. Stromberg said that there were three main obstacles to mergers: 

1. State Agencies and regulations. 

2. Reimbursement schedules. 

3. Anti-trust implications. 

William Gurtner, Executive Director of Ht. Zinn Hospital, and Spencer Rice, 
President of the Board of Trustees of St. Lukes Hospital stressed the extent to 
which the obstacles discussed by Mr. Stromberg, made mergers and coordinated 
planning difficult. 

Doug Engman of the Consumer Health Coalition stressed the impact of institu- 
tional expansion on residential i eighborhoods. He said that there was a need for 
coordinated development. 

Edward Benner, a consumer advocate, said that the complexity of the Health 
industry made coordination difficult. 

Sue Hestor, Chairperson of the Health Committee of the Eureka Valley Promotion 
Association, and John Bardis, President of the Inner-Sunset Action Committee, said 
that a moritorium on hospital construction shoula be considered. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, President Rosenblatt, speaking for the 
Commission, expressed disappointment at the way in which the hearing had gone. 
We've learned nothing new about hospital planning, he said. 

Mr. Gurtner, responding to President Rosenblatt, said that it was significant 
that the hospitals were prepared to work with the HSA. It would be tragic for 
you to assume a responsibility to plan in an area in which you've stated publicly 
that you are not prepared, he said. 

President Rosenblatt said that he could nou understand why there was not 
more effort in the industry toward coordinated effort. We'll do everything we 
can to motivate that kind of effort, he said. 

DR78.76 - DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION NOS. 7805251 
7805252 AND 7805253 TO CONSTRUCT THREE 2-UNIT BUILDINGS AT 111 
TO 121 RIPLEY STREET: ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 5524; LOTS 33, 33A AND 
33B IN AN RH-2 DISTRICT. 
(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 1978.) 

Mr. Samuel Schneider represented the applicant, Kathleen Needham. The staff 
of the Department of City Planning was represented by Robert Passmore, Planner V 
(Zoning) and Charles Gill, City Planning Coordinator. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -4- NOVEMBER 16, 1978 

Mr. Passmore said that there were a number of issues including the height 
of the proposed buildings, the size of the units and the convertibility of the 
building. 

Wayne leech, representing the neighborhood, said that the developer's draw- 
ings had been available only one hour prior to the hearing. 

At this point in the proceedings, Commissioner Dearman left the meeting 
room. 

Commissioner Starbuck said that it was clear to the Commission that all of 
tne issues had not been resolved. He noted also that there were no final plans. 
Because the Commission believes that it is inappropriate to negotiate solutions 
under these circumstances, Commissioner Starbuck said that it was his motion to 
continue the matter indefinitely until the issues are resolved to the extent that 
it would be appropriate to bring the matter back to the Commission. 

Commissioner Miller seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 

Noting that the applicant was involved in a number of violation cases, Com- 
missioner Miller said that he would recommend postponement indefinitely until the 
violation issue is resolved. 

President Rosenblatt said that he would propose initiation of an amendment 
to the City Planning Code, prohibiting issuance of permits to anyone with viola- 
tions outstanding. 

At approximately 5:40 p.m., Commissioner Starbuck left the hearing. 

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY OF OWNERS AND TENANTS IN 
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION SUBDIVISIONS. 

George Williams, Assistant Director -Plans and Programs, introduced the subject 
by noting that Commissioner Nakashima had requested the staff to comment on Policy 
#3 of the Residence Element of the Master Plan. Mr. Williams said that the refer- 
ence to a qua; Ity rental housing stock had nothing to do with the condominium 
issue. That reference, he said, relates to the maintenance of and the physical 
soundness of housing generally. 

Nathaniel Taylor, Planner III, indicated that the Commission had been pro- 
vided copies of an executive summary of a study entitled "Condominium Conversions 
in San Francisco". Mr. Taylor said that this summary was a prelude to a more 
complete hearing which was scheduled December 14, 1978. 



MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING -5- NOVEMBER 16, 1978 

At the conclusion of Mr. Taylor's summation of the executive summary, Presi- 
dent Rosenblatt suggested that documentation be provided for an assertion in the 
executive summary, that there was greater profitability in condominiums as opposed 
to rental housing. 

The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 P.M. 

Respectfully submitted, 



Lee Woods 
Secretary 



pir 

SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING 
NOVEMBER 21, 1978 
7 : 30 P.M. 

The City Planning Commission met pursuant to notice on Tuesday, 
November 21, 1978, at 7:30 p.m., in Room 282, City Hall. 

PRESENT: Toby Rosenblatt, President; Ina F. Dearman, Vice- 
President; Susan J. Bierman, Thomas Matoff, Thomas 
Miller, Yoshio Nakashima, Charles Starbuck, members 
of the City Planning Commission. 

ABSENT: None. 

The staff of the Department of City Planning was represented by 
Rai Y. Okamoto, Director of Planning; Robert W. Passmore, Planner V 
(Zoning); Selina Bendix, Environmental Review Officer; Charles Gill, 
City Planning Coordinator; Edward Green, Planner I, Barbara Sahm, 
Assistant Environmental Review Officer; and Lee Woods, Secretary. 

Gerald Adams represented the San Francisco Examiner and Dan 
Borsuk represented the San Francisco Progress. 

EE77.256 - PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 
REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED LEVI'S PLAZA DEVELOPMENT; 
NINE-ACRE PROJECT SITE, BOUNDED BY UNION STREET ON 
THE SOUTH; SANSOME STREET AND THE FOOT OF TELEGRAPH 
HILL ON THE WEST; CHESTNUT AND GREENWICH STREETS ON 
THE NORTH; AND MONTGOMERY AND SANSOME STREETS, THE 
EMBARCADERO AND FRONT STREET ON THE EAST; ASSESSOR'S 
BLOCK 107, 084, 108, 083; LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF BLOCK 
085, BLOCK 080 AND LOTS 1 AND 3 OF BLOCK 060. 
THE PROJECT WOULD INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 1,600,000 
SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE AND PARKING FOR LEVI 
STRAUSS EMPLOYEES AND OTHER PROJECT TENANTS, HOUSING 
AND RELATED COMMERCIAL FACILITIES. THE PROJECT 
WOULD FURTHER INCLUDE RETENTION OF THE ITALIAN SWISS 
COLONY AND CARGO WEST BUILDINGS, AND CONSTRICTION 
OF A PEDESTRIAN PLAZA. 

Those who commented on the draft Environmental Impact Report 
included : 

1. Thomas Guilfoy, representing the Fox and Carskadon Financial 
Corporation, owners of the Icehouse. 

2. Robin Corkery, concerned citizen. 

3. Susan Salman, concerned citizen. 

4. Harold Major, concerned citizen. 



SUMMARY AND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING -2- NOVEMBER 21, 1978 

5. Dale Benson, concerned citizen. 

6. Dwight Pittner, concerned citizen. 

7. Anne Halstead, President of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers. 

8. David Dibble, concerned citizen. 

9. Robert Fogel, concerned citizen. 

10. Galen Dong, concerned citizen. 

11. David Baker, concerned citizen. 

12. Nan Roth, concerned citizen. 

13. Gary Rossiter, concerned citizen. 

14. Robert Ransome, concerned citizen. 
15 Harold Jaffe, concerned citizen. 

16. Diane Hunter, San Francisco Tomorrow. 

17. G. Bland Piatt, President of the Landmarks Preservation 
Advisory Board. 

1;J. Stewart Kuhn, concerned citizen. 

19. Roland Selman, concerned citizen. 

20. Rhoda Parks, concerned citizen. 

21. Maury Klebolt, President of Captrans . 

22. Bennett Wahl, concerned citizen. 

23. Georges J aqOSs- tra-f fie engineer . 

24. Don Wyler, representative of the Applicant. 

25. Eric McHuron, consulting engineer. 

26. Gerson Ba' \r , project sponsor. 

At the conclusion of the public testimony, the Director of 
Planning, recommended that the public hearing be closed. 

Commissioner Nakashima moved that the public hearing be closed. 
It was seconded by Commissioner Matoff and was carried unanimously. 

The Director indicated that a certification hearing would prob- 
ably be scheduled on December 14, 1978. 

A certified court reporter was present and a transcription is 
available for reference purposes. 

A standard tape cassette recording of the proceedings is also 
available in the files of the Department of City Planning for public 
listening or transcription. 

The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 a.m. 

Respectfully submitted, 



Lee Woods 
Secretary